On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 04:55:28PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:27 PM Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:01:25AM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:54 PM Andrew Rybchenko > > > <arybche...@solarflare.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/7/20 3:51 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > > > > On 3/6/20 4:37 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 7:06 PM <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The order of mempool initiation affects mempool index in the > > > > >>> rte_mempool_ops_table. For example, when building APPs with: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> $ gcc -lrte_mempool_bucket -lrte_mempool_ring ... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The "bucket" mempool will be registered firstly, and its index > > > > >>> in table is 0 while the index of "ring" mempool is 1. DPDK > > > > >>> uses the mk/rte.app.mk to build APPs, and others, for example, > > > > >>> Open vSwitch, use the libdpdk.a or libdpdk.so to build it. > > > > >>> The mempool lib linked in dpdk and Open vSwitch is different. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The mempool can be used between primary and secondary process, > > > > >>> such as dpdk-pdump and pdump-pmd/Open vSwitch(pdump enabled). > > > > >>> There will be a crash because dpdk-pdump creates the "ring_mp_mc" > > > > >>> ring which index in table is 0, but the index of "bucket" ring > > > > >>> is 0 in Open vSwitch. If Open vSwitch use the index 0 to get > > > > >>> mempool ops and malloc memory from mempool. The crash will occur: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> bucket_dequeue (access null and crash) > > > > >>> rte_mempool_get_ops (should get "ring_mp_mc", > > > > >>> but get "bucket" mempool) > > > > >>> rte_mempool_ops_dequeue_bulk > > > > >>> ... > > > > >>> rte_pktmbuf_alloc > > > > >>> rte_pktmbuf_copy > > > > >>> pdump_copy > > > > >>> pdump_rx > > > > >>> rte_eth_rx_burst > > > > >>> > > > > >>> To avoid the crash, there are some solution: > > > > >>> * constructor priority: Different mempool uses different > > > > >>> priority in RTE_INIT, but it's not easy to maintain. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> * change mk/rte.app.mk: Change the order in mk/rte.app.mk to > > > > >>> be same as libdpdk.a/libdpdk.so, but when adding a new mempool > > > > >>> driver in future, we must make sure the order. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> * register mempool orderly: Sort the mempool when registering, > > > > >>> so the lib linked will not affect the index in mempool table. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com> > > > > >>> Acked-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> > > > > >> Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > The patch is OK, but the fact that ops index changes during > > > > > mempool driver lifetime is frightening. In fact it breaks > > > > > rte_mempool_register_ops() return value semantics (read > > > > > as API break). The return value is not used in DPDK, but it > > > > > is a public function. If I'm not mistaken it should be taken > > > > > into account. > > > > Good points. > > > > The fact that the ops index changes during mempool driver lifetime is > > indeed frightening, especially knowning that this is a dynamic > > registration that could happen at any moment in the life of the > > application. Also, breaking the ABI is not desirable. > That solution is better. > > > Let me try to propose something else to solve your issue: > > > > 1/ At init, the primary process allocates a struct in shared memory > > (named memzone): > > > > struct rte_mempool_shared_ops { > > size_t num_mempool_ops; > > struct { > > char name[RTE_MEMPOOL_OPS_NAMESIZE]; > > } mempool_ops[RTE_MEMPOOL_MAX_OPS_IDX];
> > char *mempool_ops_name[RTE_MEMPOOL_MAX_OPS_IDX]; oops I forgot to remove this line (replaced by mini-struct just above). > > rte_spinlock_t mempool; > > } > > > > 2/ When we register a mempool ops, we first get a name and id from the > > shared struct: with the lock held, lookup for the registered name and > > return its index, else get the last id and copy the name in the struct. > > > > 3/ Then do as before (in the per-process global table), except that we > > reuse the registered id. > > > > We can remove the num_ops field from rte_mempool_ops_table. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > Yes, should update the doc: how about this: > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > > b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > > index c90cf31..5a9c8a7 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.h > > > @@ -904,7 +904,9 @@ int rte_mempool_ops_get_info(const struct rte_mempool > > > *mp, > > > * @param ops > > > * Pointer to an ops structure to register. > > > * @return > > > - * - >=0: Success; return the index of the ops struct in the table. > > > + * - >=0: Success; return the index of the last ops struct in the > > > table. > > > + * The number of the ops struct registered is equal to index > > > + * returned + 1. > > > * - -EINVAL - some missing callbacks while registering ops struct. > > > * - -ENOSPC - the maximum number of ops structs has been reached. > > > */ > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_ops.c > > > b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_ops.c > > > index b0da096..053f340 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_ops.c > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool_ops.c > > > @@ -26,7 +26,11 @@ struct rte_mempool_ops_table rte_mempool_ops_table = { > > > return strcmp(m_a->name, m_b->name); > > > } > > > > > > -/* add a new ops struct in rte_mempool_ops_table, return its index. */ > > > +/* > > > + * add a new ops struct in rte_mempool_ops_table. > > > + * on success, return the index of the last ops > > > + * struct in the table. > > > + */ > > > int > > > rte_mempool_register_ops(const struct rte_mempool_ops *h) > > > { > > > > > Also I remember patches which warn about above behaviour > > > > > in documentation. If behaviour changes, corresponding > > > > > documentation must be updated. > > > > > > > > One more point. If the patch is finally accepted it definitely > > > > deserves few lines in release notes. > > > OK, a separate patch should be sent before DPDK 20.05 release ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Tonghao > > > > -- > Thanks, > Tonghao