> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Zhang, Qi Z
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 9:26 AM
> To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net
> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
> <benjamin.h.shel...@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
> <narender.vang...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 05/19] eal: enable hotplug on
> multi-process
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burakov, Anatoly
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:01 PM
> > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net
> > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
> > <benjamin.h.shel...@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
> > <narender.vang...@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/19] eal: enable hotplug on multi-process
> >
> > On 09-Jul-18 4:36 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > > We are going to introduce the solution to handle hotplug in
> > > multi-process, it includes the below scenario:
> > >
> > > 1. Attach a device from the primary
> > > 2. Detach a device from the primary
> > > 3. Attach a device from a secondary
> > > 4. Detach a device from a secondary
> > >
> > > In the primary-secondary process model, we assume devices are shared
> > > by default. that means attaches or detaches a device on any process
> > > will broadcast to all other processes through mp channel then device
> > > information will be synchronized on all processes.
> > >
> > > Any failure during attaching/detaching process will cause
> > > inconsistent status between processes, so proper rollback action should be
> considered.
> > >
> > > This patch covers the implementation of case 1,2.
> > > Case 3,4 will be implemented on a separate patch.
> > >
> > > IPC scenario for Case 1, 2:
> > >
> > > attach a device
> > > a) primary attach the new device if failed goto h).
> > > b) primary send attach sync request to all secondary.
> > > c) secondary receive request and attach the device and send a reply.
> > > d) primary check the reply if all success goes to i).
> > > e) primary send attach rollback sync request to all secondary.
> > > f) secondary receive the request and detach the device and send a reply.
> > > g) primary receive the reply and detach device as rollback action.
> > > h) attach fail
> > > i) attach success
> > >
> > > detach a device
> > > a) primary send detach sync request to all secondary
> > > b) secondary detach the device and send reply
> > > c) primary check the reply if all success goes to f).
> > > d) primary send detach rollback sync request to all secondary.
> > > e) secondary receive the request and attach back device. goto g)
> > > f) primary detach the device if success goto g), else goto d)
> > > g) detach fail.
> > > h) detach success.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > + req.t = EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_ATTACH;
> > > + strlcpy(req.busname, busname, RTE_BUS_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> > > + strlcpy(req.devname, devname, RTE_DEV_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> > > + strlcpy(req.devargs, devargs, RTE_DEV_ARGS_MAX_LEN);
> > > +
> > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> > > + return -ENOTSUP;
> >
> > Nitpick, but maybe do this before strlcpy?
>
> On the next patch, these strlcpy can be reused when implemented secondary
> process case
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > > + * attach a device from primary start from here:
> > > + *
> > > + * a) primary attach the new device if failed goto h).
> > > + * b) primary send attach sync request to all secondary.
> > > + * c) secondary receive request and attach the device and send a reply.
> > > + * d) primary check the reply if all success goes to i).
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > +
> > > + memset(&req, 0, sizeof(req));
> > > + req.t = EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_DETACH;
> > > + strlcpy(req.busname, busname, RTE_BUS_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> > > + strlcpy(req.devname, devname, RTE_DEV_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> > > +
> > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> > > + return -ENOTSUP;
> >
> > Same nitpick, probably move this above.
> >
> > > +
> > > + /**
> > > + * detach a device from primary start from here:
> > > + *
> > > + * a) primary send detach sync request to all secondary
> > > + * b) secondary detach the device and send reply
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > + struct mp_reply_bundle *bundle = param;
> > > + struct rte_mp_msg *msg = &bundle->msg;
> > > + const struct eal_dev_mp_req *req =
> > > + (const struct eal_dev_mp_req *)msg->param;
> > > + struct rte_mp_msg mp_resp;
> > > + struct eal_dev_mp_req *resp =
> > > + (struct eal_dev_mp_req *)mp_resp.param;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + memset(&mp_resp, 0, sizeof(mp_resp));
> > > +
> > > + switch (req->t) {
> > > + case EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_ATTACH:
> > > + case EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_DETACH_ROLLBACK:
> > > + ret = do_dev_hotplug_add(req->busname, req->devname, "");
> >
> > I'm not too familiar with devargs and hotplug, but why are we passing
> > empty devargs string here? Is it possible for it to be not empty?
>
> For secondary process, devargs is ignored, so we just need the device unique
> identity <busname, devname>
>
> >
> > > + break;
> > > + case EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_DETACH:
> > > + case EAL_DEV_REQ_TYPE_ATTACH_ROLLBACK:
> > > + ret = do_dev_hotplug_remove(req->busname, req->devname);
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> > > + ret = rte_mp_action_register(EAL_DEV_MP_ACTION_REQUEST,
> > > + handle_secondary_request);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Couldn't register '%s' action\n",
> > > + EAL_DEV_MP_ACTION_REQUEST);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > + } else {
> > > + ret = rte_mp_action_register(EAL_DEV_MP_ACTION_REQUEST,
> > > + handle_primary_request);
> >
> > ^^ wrong indentation.
>
> Will fix.
> >
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Couldn't register '%s' action\n",
> > > + EAL_DEV_MP_ACTION_REQUEST);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > +
> > > +#endif /* _HOTPLUG_MP_H_ */
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > > index eb9eded4e..720f7c3c8 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
> > > @@ -197,6 +197,9 @@ struct rte_bus_conf {
> > > typedef enum rte_iova_mode (*rte_bus_get_iommu_class_t)(void);
> > >
> > >
> > > +/* Max length for a bus name */
> > > +#define RTE_BUS_NAME_MAX_LEN 32
> >
> > Is this enforced anywhere in the bus codebase? Can we guarantee that
> > bus name will never be bigger than this?
>
> I think 32 should be enough for a bus name even in future.
Sorry, I missed your point, I think it is not enforced, we still can add a new
bus exceed 32,
but for RTE_DEV_NAME_MAX_LEN which is used in rte_devargs to enforce all device
name not exceed 64.
So, it's better to move RTE_BUS_NAME_MAX_LEN into hotplug_mp as internal , and
this can be regarded as a limitation for hotplug so far, though it should be
enough for all exist cases.
And same for RTE_DEV_ARGS_MAX_LEN.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * A structure describing a generic bus.
> > > */
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h
> > > index 3879ff3ca..667df20f0 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h
> > > @@ -152,6 +152,9 @@ struct rte_driver {
> > > */
> > > #define RTE_DEV_NAME_MAX_LEN 64
> > >
> > > +/* Max devargs length be allowed */ #define RTE_DEV_ARGS_MAX_LEN
> > > +128
> >
> > Same - is this enforced anywhere in the codebase related to devargs?
>
> I'm not sure, but I guess it is big enough for all exist driver :)
>
> Thanks
> Qi
>
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Anatoly
