From: 方统浩50450 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Ferruh Yigit <email@example.com> Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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*.3.1579174548054.Hmail.email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >@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 <email@example.com> 发送日期：2020-01-16 17:04:09 收件人：Andrew Rybchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com> 抄送人："方统浩50450" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org,Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <email@example.com> 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_BONDED_SLAVE, RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR and >> 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. > >OK > >> >>> 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. >> > >OK > >So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note >in function comment related to this secondary check.
next prev parent 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='AM6AEwBQCIJk9JP063jdHKr*.3.1579174548054.Hmail.firstname.lastname@example.org' \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * 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 https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 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/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \ firstname.lastname@example.org public-inbox-index stable Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git