On 3/9/20 11:27 AM, Olivier Matz 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.
>
> 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];
> 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?
I like the solution.
