> On Apr 23, 2019, at 1:09 AM, Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 22-Apr-19 6:51 PM, Yongseok Koh wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 2019, at 7:44 AM, Herakliusz Lipiec
>>> <herakliusz.lip...@intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> When sending multiple requests, rte_mp_request_sync
>>> can succeed sending a few of those requests, but then
>>> fail on a later one and in the end return with rc=-1.
>>> The upper layers - e.g. device hotplug - currently
>>> handles this case as if no messages were sent and no
>>> memory for response buffers was allocated, which is
>>> not true. Fixed by always freeing reply message buffers.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9a8ab29b84d3 ("net/mlx5: replace IPC socket with EAL API")
>>> Fixes: c18cf501a7af ("net/mlx5: enable secondary process to register DMA
>>> memory")
>>> Cc: ys...@mellanox.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Herakliusz Lipiec <herakliusz.lip...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_mp.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_mp.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_mp.c
>>> index cea74adb6..c9915b1d5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_mp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_mp.c
>>> @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ mlx5_mp_req_mr_create(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>> uintptr_t addr)
>>> if (ret) {
>>> DRV_LOG(ERR, "port %u request to primary process failed",
>>> dev->data->port_id);
>>> + free(mp_rep.msgs);
>>> return -rte_errno;
>>> }
>>> assert(mp_rep.nb_received == 1);
>>> @@ -295,7 +296,8 @@ mlx5_mp_req_verbs_cmd_fd(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>> if (ret) {
>>> DRV_LOG(ERR, "port %u request to primary process failed",
>>> dev->data->port_id);
>>> - return -rte_errno;
>>> + ret = -rte_errno;
>>> + goto exit;
>> These two requests will be made by a secondary process targeting to the
>> primary.
>> Then, there's only one request in this case and we don't need to take care
>> of that.
>> Right?
>> Same comment for mlx4.
>
> Hi Yongseok,
>
> mp_rep.msgs is potentially allocated regardless of whether you're in primary
> or secondary, and whether the call to mp_request_sync succeeded or failed.
> Hence, need to free in all cases.
Then, it looks fine to me.
>
> See this patch:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatches.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F52868%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cyskoh%40mellanox.com%7C007b61ef9d964dc79e7108d6c7c2f9d8%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636916037564345993&sdata=O%2BoG%2F8P8cXwKS%2FDfZyMiG3CiIDpeXe3dPMJgVilzFWY%3D&reserved=0
> and this bug:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.dpdk.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D228&data=02%7C01%7Cyskoh%40mellanox.com%7C007b61ef9d964dc79e7108d6c7c2f9d8%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636916037564345993&sdata=jLA5wLqT%2BfW3p79rg2SVEZ16GS37dgqdF4NwmiRU%2B7A%3D&reserved=0
>
>> Thanks,
>> Yongseok
>>> }
>>> assert(mp_rep.nb_received == 1);
>>> mp_res = &mp_rep.msgs[0];
>>> --
>>> 2.17.2
>>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
