On 10/4/2021 3:25 PM, Elad Nachman wrote: Can you please try to not top post, it will make impossible to follow this discussion later from the mail archives.
> 1. Userspace will get an error So there is nothing special with returning '-EAGAIN', user will only observe an error. Wasn't initial intention to use '-EAGAIN' to try request again? > 2. Waiting with rtnl locked causes a deadlock; waiting with rtnl unlocked > for interface down command causes a crash because of a race condition in > the device delete/unregister list in the kernel. > Why waiting with rthnl lock causes a deadlock? As said below we are already doing it, why it is different with retry logic? I agree to not wait with rtnl unlocked. > FYI, > > Elad. > > בתאריך יום ב׳, 4 באוק׳ 2021, 17:13, מאת Ferruh Yigit < > ferruh.yi...@intel.com>: > >> On 10/4/2021 2:09 PM, Elad Nachman wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> EAGAIN is propogated back to the kernel and to the caller. >>> >> >> So will the user get an error, or it will be handled by the kernel and >> retried? >> >>> We cannot retry from the kni kernel module since we hold the rtnl lock. >>> >> >> Why not? We are already waiting until a command time out, like >> 'kni_net_open()' >> can retry if 'kni_net_process_request()' returns '-EAGAIN'. And we can >> limit the >> number of retry for safety. >> >>> FYI, >>> >>> Elad >>> >>> בתאריך יום ב׳, 4 באוק׳ 2021, 16:05, מאת Ferruh Yigit < >>> ferruh.yi...@intel.com>: >>> >>>> On 9/24/2021 11:54 AM, Elad Nachman wrote: >>>>> Fix lack of multiple KNI requests handling support by introducing a >>>>> request in progress flag which will fail additional requests with >>>>> EAGAIN return code if the original request has not been processed >>>>> by user-space. >>>>> >>>>> Bugzilla ID: 809 >>>> >>>> Hi Eric, >>>> >>>> Can you please test this patch, if it solves the issue you reported? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Elad Nachman <ela...@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> kernel/linux/kni/kni_net.c | 9 +++++++++ >>>>> lib/kni/rte_kni.c | 2 ++ >>>>> lib/kni/rte_kni_common.h | 1 + >>>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> @@ -123,7 +124,15 @@ kni_net_process_request(struct net_device *dev, >>>> struct rte_kni_request *req) >>>>> >>>>> mutex_lock(&kni->sync_lock); >>>>> >>>>> + /* Check that existing request has been processed: */ >>>>> + cur_req = (struct rte_kni_request *)kni->sync_kva; >>>>> + if (cur_req->req_in_progress) { >>>>> + ret = -EAGAIN; >>>> >>>> Overall logic in the KNI looks good to me, this helps to serialize the >>>> requests >>>> even for async ones. >>>> >>>> But can you please clarify how it behaves in the kernel side with >> '-EAGAIN' >>>> return type? Will linux call the ndo again, or will it just fail. >>>> >>>> If it just fails should we handle the re-try on '-EAGAIN' within the kni >>>> module? >>>> >>>> >> >>