patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 方统浩50450 <>
To: Ferruh Yigit <>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <>,
	 Thomas Monjalon <>,,,,,,,
	 Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:35:48 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Message-ID: <AM6AEwBQCIJk9JP063jdHKr*> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

>@Fang, only can you please make a new version to update the
>'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' function comment to document shared data is not updated
>for the secondary process?
>So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note
>in function comment related to this secondary check.
@Ferruh Yigit
Should I update a new version patch of "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function and explain
wthether the regular functioning of secondary process is affected or not?
I cant figure out what you need me to do.

发件人:Ferruh Yigit <>
发送日期:2020-01-16 17:04:09
收件人:Andrew Rybchenko <>,Thomas Monjalon <>
抄送人:"方统浩50450" <>,,,,,,,Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <>
主题:Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory>On 1/16/2020 7:43 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> On 1/15/20 11:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 15/01/2020 19:35, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>> On 1/15/2020 6:49 AM, 方统浩50450 wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ferruh, thanks for your message.
>>>>> We developed a ethtool-dpdk which is secondary process based dpdk 17.08 version. Our device
>>>>> support hotplug detach, but hotplug deatch is failed when we use ethtool-dpdk.We found the
>>>>> secondary process will change the shared memory when initializing.Secondary process calls
>>>>> "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function and enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function.
>>>>> (rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_probe -> rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate -> rte_eth_copy_pci_info)
>>>>> Then it sets the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags" to zero.In our platform, this value
>>>>> is equal to 0x0003.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE | RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC),but after reset
>>>>> the "dev_flags", the value changed to 0x0002.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE).So, our device hotplug
>>>>> detach is failed.I found the similar problem in other dpdk version, include dpdk 19.11.Even though
>>>>> the deivce hotplug detach is discarded,but i think the shared memory changed is unexpected by primary
>>>>> process.
>> Hold on, just for my understanding. As far as I can see
>> RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE was removed in 17.11. Does it
>> change something in above description?
>Overall secondary overwrites primary values, I think we should fix it
>independent from the flags involved.
>>>> I agree this is the problem.
>>>> In the driver code, 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' is called only by primary process,
>>>> but the generic code is faulty.
>>>> And in 19.11 additionally 'eth_dev_pci_specific_init' also seems has same problem.
>> Yes, as I understand RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE,
>> RTE_ETH_DEV_NOLIVE_MAC_ADDR may be lost because of
>> reinit (if not restored in other branches). Bad anyway.
>>>>> Our driver is ixgbe, i think this problem has a little relationship with driver, Secondary process
>>>>> enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" by "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate".And I agree your opinion, the helper
>>>>> function should simple on what it does.I have two ways to fix this problem, one is add an if-statement
>>>>> in "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function to forbid secondary process enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function,
>>>>> another way is add an if-statement in "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function to forbid secondary process change
>>>>> shared memory.And First way need to ensure the "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function won't be called anywhere else.
>>>>> I think the second way is simple and lower risk.
>>>> Yes these are the two options.
>>>> I agree adding check in the 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' covers all cases and safer.
>>>> BUT my concern was adding decision making to simple/leaf function and make it
>>>> harder to debug/use, instead of giving what primary/secondary process should
>>>> call decision in higher level.
>>>> But I just recognized that some PMDs are calling 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' on
>>>> secondary process, like mlx4 or szedata2, and most probably this is not their
>>>> intention.
>>>> And 'eth_dev->intr_handle' set in 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info', not calling this
>>>> function may have side affect of 'eth_dev->intr_handle' not set in secondary.
>>>> With above considerations I am OK to your proposal to cover all cases, Thomas,
>>>> Andrew, any concern?
>> I would put if condition in rte_eth_copy_pci_info().
>> It is the function which writes shared space from
>> secondary process when it should not be done and it
>> should be fixed there.
>>> Do you mean drivers need to be fixed?
>> I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Since copy function
>> cares about intr_handle copying I'm afraid that it is not
>> 100% correct to skip it in secondary process completely as
>> many drivers do right now. Basically it makes eth_dev structure
>> in secondary process inconsistent. However, it looks like
>> most of these drivers simply obtain handle from pci_dev
>> directly and it explains why they are not affected.
>> There are exceptions which are potentially bugs, e.g.
>> drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c: ice_interrupt_handler at the end.
>> I think that it would be better if intr_handle is always
>> correct in eth_dev (both primary and secondary cases) and
>> drivers use it instead of the same from pci_dev.
>So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note
>in function comment related to this secondary check.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-16 11:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-09 12:27 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] ethdev: fix secondary process change share memory Fang TongHao
2020-01-10  7:30 ` Jeff Guo
2020-01-10  7:53   ` 方统浩50450
2020-01-13  5:03 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory Fang TongHao
2020-01-14 14:45   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-15  6:49     ` 方统浩50450
2020-01-15 18:35       ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-15 20:43         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-01-16  7:43           ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-01-16  9:04             ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-16 11:35               ` 方统浩50450 [this message]
2020-01-16 12:18                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-17  2:11                   ` 方统浩50450
2020-01-16  9:00           ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-01-17  2:08   ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Fang TongHao
2020-01-17  8:33     ` Andrew Rybchenko
2020-01-17 17:58       ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='AM6AEwBQCIJk9JP063jdHKr*' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ \
	public-inbox-index stable

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone