> -----Original Message----- > From: Maxime Coquelin <[email protected]> > Sent: 1/11/2024 16:27 > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <[email protected]>; Xu, HailinX > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Abhishek Marathe <[email protected]>; Ali > Alnubani <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > David Christensen <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > <[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; Ju- > Hyoung Lee <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>; > Luca Boccassi <[email protected]>; Pei Zhang <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact- > Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; Yanghang Liu > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: 22.11.4 patches review and test > > Hi, > > On 1/11/24 07:32, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > Hi Hainlin, > > > > Thanks very much for test test and report! > > Let me know once any progress with the known issue. > > > > Thanks, > > Xueming. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Xu, HailinX <[email protected]> > >> Sent: 1/11/2024 9:42 > >> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; Abhishek Marathe <[email protected]>; > >> Ali Alnubani <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David > >> Christensen <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > >> <[email protected]>; Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; Jerin > >> Jacob <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; > >> Ju-Hyoung Lee <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor > >> <[email protected]>; Luca Boccassi <[email protected]>; Pei Zhang > >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh > >> <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon > >> (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; Yanghang Liu <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected]; [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: 22.11.4 patches review and test > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Xueming Li <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 3:19 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Abhishek Marathe > >>> <[email protected]>; Ali Alnubani <[email protected]>; > >>> [email protected]; David Christensen > >>> <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; > >>> Stokes, Ian <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > >>> <[email protected]>; Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; > >>> Ju-Hyoung Lee <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor > >>> <[email protected]>; Luca Boccassi <[email protected]>; Pei Zhang > >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh > >>> <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; > >>> Yanghang Liu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >>> [email protected] > >>> Subject: 22.11.4 patches review and test > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Here is a list of patches targeted for stable release 22.11.4. > >>> > >>> The planned date for the final release is 5th January. > >>> > >>> Please help with testing and validation of your use cases and report > >>> any issues/results with reply-all to this mail. For the final > >>> release the fixes and reported validations will be added to the release > >>> notes. > >>> > >>> A release candidate tarball can be found at: > >>> > >>> https://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/tag/?id=v22.11.4-rc3 > >>> > >>> These patches are located at branch 22.11 of dpdk-stable repo: > >>> https://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/ > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> Xueming Li <[email protected]> > >> > >> Update the test status for Intel part. dpdk22.11.4-rc3 all validation test > >> done. > >> Found 1 virtio bug. > >> > >> new issue: > >> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1338: virtio-user can't receive > >> packet: > >> this test only on SPR -Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8490H --Intel > >> development is investigating > > > > Maxime, seems the issue related to patch "vhost: fix checking > > virtqueue access in stats API", Could you please take a look? > > I will reply in the Bz, but there seems to be 2 backporting issues: > > 1. We miss the unlock on return 0: > > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost.c b/lib/vhost/vhost.c index > 4edb76d0dd..6e1bba4391 > 100644 > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost.c > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost.c > @@ -2070,6 +2070,12 @@ rte_vhost_get_monitor_addr(int vid, uint16_t > queue_id, > if (vq == NULL) > return -1; > > + if (!rte_spinlock_trylock(&vq->access_lock)) > + return -1; > + > + if (unlikely(!vq->access_ok)) > + goto out_unlock; > + > if (vq_is_packed(dev)) { > struct vring_packed_desc *desc; > desc = vq->desc_packed; > @@ -2090,6 +2096,11 @@ rte_vhost_get_monitor_addr(int vid, uint16_t > queue_id, > } > > return 0; <== We miss an unlock here > + > +out_unlock: > + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->access_lock); > + > + return -1; > } > > The original patch does it like this: > > } > > - return 0; > +out_unlock: > + rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&vq->access_lock); > + > + return ret; > } > > > 2. Some unrelated change is introduced: > > @@ -2157,6 +2168,7 @@ int rte_vhost_vring_stats_reset(int vid, uint16_t > queue_id) > { > struct virtio_net *dev = get_device(vid); > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq; > + int ret = 0; > > if (dev == NULL) > return -1; > > Above change fixes a build issue introduce in an earlier patch. > > How do you want to proceed? Do you want a patch on top of 22.11.4?
Thanks for the prompt response, let's have a patch on top of 22.11.4. > > Regards, > Maxime > > >> > >> # Basic Intel(R) NIC testing > >> * Build & CFLAG compile: cover the build test combination with latest > GCC/Clang > >> version and the popular OS revision such as > >> Ubuntu20.04, Ubuntu22.04, Fedora38, RHEL8.7, RHEL9.2, FreeBSD13.2, > SUSE15, > >> CentOS7.9, openEuler22.03-SP1，OpenAnolis8.8 etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * PF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including > >> RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * VF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including VF- > >> RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. > >> > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * PF/VF(ice): test scenarios including Switch features/Package > Management/Flow > >> Director/Advanced Tx/Advanced RSS/ACL/DCF/Flexible Descriptor, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * Intel NIC single core/NIC performance: test scenarios including PF/VF > >> single > >> core performance test, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * IPsec: test scenarios including ipsec/ipsec-gw/ipsec library basic test - > >> QAT&SW/FIB library, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> > >> # Basic cryptodev and virtio testing > >> * Virtio: both function and performance test are covered. Such as > >> PVP/Virtio_loopback/virtio-user loopback/virtio-net VM2VM perf > >> testing/VMAWARE ESXI 8.0, etc. > >> - All test done. found 1 new issue. > >> * Cryptodev: > >> *Function test: test scenarios including Cryptodev API > >> testing/CompressDev > ISA- > >> L/QAT/ZLIB PMD Testing/FIPS, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> *Performance test: test scenarios including Thoughput > Performance/Cryptodev > >> Latency, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Xu, Hailin > >> > >
