On 18-Sep-18 10:43 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
26/07/2018 11:41, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 25-Jul-18 7:20 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
There is no need to call rte_exit and crash the application here;
better to let the application handle the error itself.
Remove the gratuitous profanity which would be visible if
the rte_exit was still there.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com>
---
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
@@ -841,14 +841,12 @@ mp_request_async(const char *dst, struct rte_mp_msg *req,
param->user_reply.nb_sent++;
- if (rte_eal_alarm_set(ts->tv_sec * 1000000 + ts->tv_nsec / 1000,
- async_reply_handle, pending_req) < 0) {
+ ret = rte_eal_alarm_set(ts->tv_sec * 1000000 + ts->tv_nsec / 1000,
+ async_reply_handle, pending_req);
+ if (ret < 0)
RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Fail to set alarm for request %s:%s\n",
dst, req->name);
- rte_panic("Fix the above shit to properly free all memory\n");
Profanity aside, i think the message was trying to tell me something -
namely, that if alarm_set fails, we're risking to leak this memory if
reply from the peer never comes, and we're risking leaving the
application hanging because the timeout never triggers. I'm not sure if
leaving this "to the user" is the right choice, because there is no way
for the user to free IPC-internal memory if it leaks.
So i think the proper way to handle this would've been to set the alarm
first, then, if it fails, don't sent the message in the first place.
What should be done here? OK to remove rte_panic for now?
As i said, the above fix is wrong because it leaks memory (however
unlikely it may be).
The alarm set call should be moved to before we do send_msg() call (and
goto fail; on failure). That way, even if alarm triggers too early (i.e.
immediately), the requests tailq will still be locked until we complete
our request sends - so we appropriately free memory on response, on
timeout or in our failure handler if alarm set has failed.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
