On 03/07/2018 10:49, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 17:41, Tiago Lam wrote:
>
>> A new mutex, 'nonpmd_mp_mutex', has been introduced to serialise
>> allocation and free operations by non-pmd threads on a given mempool.
>>
>> free_dpdk_buf() has been modified to make use of the introduced mutex.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tiago Lam <tiago....@intel.com>
>> ---
>> lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
>> index c5c6aab..5c62d85 100644
>> --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
>> +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c
>> @@ -294,6 +294,16 @@ static struct ovs_mutex dpdk_mp_mutex
>> OVS_ACQ_AFTER(dpdk_mutex)
>> static struct ovs_list dpdk_mp_free_list
>> OVS_GUARDED_BY(dpdk_mp_mutex)
>> = OVS_LIST_INITIALIZER(&dpdk_mp_free_list);
>>
>> +/* This mutex must be used by non pmd threads when allocating or
>> freeing
>> + * mbufs through mempools, when outside of the `non_pmd_mutex` mutex,
>> in struct
>> + * dp_netdev.
>> + * The reason, as pointed out in the "Known Issues" section in DPDK's
>> EAL docs,
>> + * is that the implementation on which mempool is based off is
>> non-preemptable.
>> + * Since non-pmds may end up not being pinned this could lead to the
>> preemption
>> + * between non-pmds performing operations on the same mempool, which
>> could lead
>> + * to memory corruption. */
>> +static struct ovs_mutex nonpmd_mp_mutex = OVS_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>> +
>> /* Wrapper for a mempool released but not yet freed. */
>> struct dpdk_mp {
>> struct rte_mempool *mp;
>> @@ -462,6 +472,8 @@ struct netdev_rxq_dpdk {
>> dpdk_port_t port_id;
>> };
>>
>> +static bool dpdk_thread_is_pmd(void);
>> +
>> static void netdev_dpdk_destruct(struct netdev *netdev);
>> static void netdev_dpdk_vhost_destruct(struct netdev *netdev);
>>
>> @@ -495,6 +507,12 @@ dpdk_buf_size(int mtu)
>> NETDEV_DPDK_MBUF_ALIGN);
>> }
>>
>> +static bool
>> +dpdk_thread_is_pmd(void)
>> +{
>> + return rte_lcore_id() != NON_PMD_CORE_ID;
>> +}
>> +
>> /* Allocates an area of 'sz' bytes from DPDK. The memory is zero'ed.
>> *
>> * Unlike xmalloc(), this function can return NULL on failure. */
>> @@ -505,11 +523,17 @@ dpdk_rte_mzalloc(size_t sz)
>> }
>>
>> void
>> -free_dpdk_buf(struct dp_packet *p)
>> +free_dpdk_buf(struct dp_packet *packet)
>> {
>> - struct rte_mbuf *pkt = (struct rte_mbuf *) p;
>> + if (!dpdk_thread_is_pmd()) {
>> + ovs_mutex_lock(&nonpmd_mp_mutex);
>> + }
>>
>> - rte_pktmbuf_free(pkt);
>> + rte_pktmbuf_free((struct rte_mbuf *) packet);
>
> Rather than casting it, it should be &packet->mbuf, some one might
> change the order in the dp_packet structure.
>
Missed this one. I'll do this for v2, thanks.
Tiago.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
