From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88075A0569 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744581C01E; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFF31C01E for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:49 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584003829; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=a04XSN6i1T4dAgAVBjoejKB5uJLQ0df4OsedS9+VYP4=; b=Qip770Pyv1P+Ze7rEKIZZqBgxAlpIu8H65JVi+FHRRo0H2Hf2uHIJ22FfpUyQNDJ5OK5bi ArbW/obmoLwD5wyL5533IpcTTTFUjnn9wyQ+XVq2JVoRJQ131OGjU/XuFBq+sWS7aPkoNU TJZEpYbz9Pm9k3T4cRfWdSuHishU2t8= Received: from mail-ua1-f70.google.com (mail-ua1-f70.google.com [209.85.222.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-413-X3wg2Z8FMxa4BubK4WizzA-1; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:03:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: X3wg2Z8FMxa4BubK4WizzA-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f70.google.com with SMTP id k15so766216uap.2 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dWYAo/P50ogusOCi2ecLwJDIMv7Le904JpnF74cCpb8=; b=l+C/cqggXaUKuaRkS9u2ty+VRzTCVsCU1kjIFt39bmS/HNTKSlfvS2y759B72zSMmx FmAlICojYABHzoWuu8bAS8kRUYxINDqVaJ+NjKQJtgY8pmZc51zl9LHbAIqSMPhbkCXz YxzMuavBZWmgyEHUkbkeYsZyLVXbT2zkI/cfm+SeN/nIe44M3y4Xeek8h5DIr11PqhBy 4soE0ffs7vpHMutxNh545If0MH46GqNO2XvdVm/MHHzxmyGbzpaMTfEW2ZiJpMryIpZd 3l5mKIr5wa40HQ5o+gsW1SMbxT6JcfDuoXJXwr1I6k7//4coDwFAF1x8Md5xClOlPACl Sb4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2BGeMSWVuA2OgTCwkXKVB3KKfgBpNbUe2daJLm42cRW5NB6cCS ne46lSgwwBV0l/LXp4In7cLgLlzaPzwkThJHDxIcPGDXnjm1bl+JN+lNdcFgl+5RwiDNMtHQY+w jl1MA6NTv7Vx7x8Nsxe+vd7Q= X-Received: by 2002:a67:643:: with SMTP id 64mr4793664vsg.180.1584003826966; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:03:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvqJVZbdZJfk5KiSUy5onJJZpX0rVxKSa/F/lTKXWNw2WHnL+2+04HstJcajpO905PG9V0z/I3rP8Hj9x2itwU= X-Received: by 2002:a67:643:: with SMTP id 64mr4793642vsg.180.1584003826658; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:03:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200310133304.39951-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> <20200311143927.76021-1-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:03:35 +0100 Message-ID: To: Aaron Conole Cc: Harry van Haaren , dev , dpdk stable X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] eal/service: fix exit by resetting service lcores X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:08 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > > David Marchand writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:39 PM Harry van Haaren > > wrote: > >> > >> This commit releases all service cores from their role, > >> returning them to ROLE_RTE on rte_service_finalize(). > >> > >> This may fix an issue relating to the service cores causing > > > > You don't seem convinced. > > > > > >> a race-condition on eal_cleanup(), where the service core > >> could still be executing while the main thread has already > >> free-d the service memory, leading to a segfault. > >> > >> Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept") > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >> > >> Reported-by: David Marchand > >> Reported-by: Aaron Conole > >> Signed-off-by: David Marchand > >> Signed-off-by: Harry van Haaren > >> Acked-by: Aaron Conole > > > > I am okay with merging this so that we stop getting random failures of = the ut. > > I think it could also potentially cause errors in user applications that > regularly exit, and which use the service core architecture. So it's > worth getting in now, anyway. Indeed, thanks for the precision. In my defense, we did not get report of such crashes out of the CI. The CI is the main reason why I (selfishly :-)) have been pressing on this issue. --=20 David Marchand