Hi Peng,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HePeng [mailto:xnhp0320 at icloud.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 3:09 PM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] [new]ixgbe:set txep.mbuf to NULL when calling
> ixgbe_tx_free_bufs
>
> Hi Wenzhuo,
> The issue is in the function *ixgbe_dev_free_queues* called in the
> *ixgbe_dev_close*.
> The *ixgbe_dev_free_queues* will call *ixgbe_rx_queue_release_mbuf*
> to recycle all the mbuf on the queues. If some mbufs have already been
> recycled
> by the *ixgbe_tx_free_bufs*, their ref cnt is 0.
>
> However, since the pointers are not set to NULL,
> *ixgbe_rx_queue_release_mbuf* will also check the mbufs whose ref cnt is 0,
> then if one enables *CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_DEBUG*, the sanity checks will warn
> that the ref cnt is bad, and the program will bail out.
>
> As you said if this is a designed behavior, you need to fix the code in
> *ixgbe_rx_queue_release_mbuf* to skip the mbuf that already been recycled.
But I think it's skipped, like this,
if (rxq->sw_ring[i].mbuf != NULL &&
rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(rxq->sw_ring[i].mbuf)) {
rte_pktmbuf_free_seg(rxq->sw_ring[i].mbuf);
>
>
> > ? 2015?8?3????1:16?Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com> ?
> ??
> >
> > Hi Peng,
> > Would you like to tell me more details about the panic?
> > I saw there's refcnt check in rte_mbuf_sanity_check. I'm not sure what
> > sanity
> check you want to add.
> > Thanks.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: HePeng [mailto:xnhp0320 at icloud.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 10:54 AM
> >> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] [new]ixgbe:set txep.mbuf to NULL when
> calling
> >> ixgbe_tx_free_bufs
> >>
> >> Hi, Wenzhuo
> >> It will cause panic if you enable *CONFIG_RTE_MBUF_DEBUG* in you
> >> config file. So if it is a designed behavior, some code fix may need for
> >> *mbuf_sanity_check*.
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>> ? 2015?8?3????10:46?Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> ?
> >> ??
> >>>
> >>> Hi Peng,
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of hepeng
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 9:27 AM
> >>>> To: dev at dpdk.org
> >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] [new]ixgbe:set txep.mbuf to NULL when
> calling
> >>>> ixgbe_tx_free_bufs
> >>>>
> >>>> In *ixgbe_tx_free_bufs*, after recycling some tx entries, one should set
> their
> >>>> mbuf pointers to NULL.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first path is not correct, the txep->mbuf should be set to NULL no
> matter
> >> if
> >>>> it is recycled into mempool
> >>>> Signed-off-by: hepeng <xnhp0320 at icloud.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> >>>> b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> >>>> index 1c16dec..e7ce740 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx_vec.c
> >>>> @@ -612,6 +612,7 @@ ixgbe_tx_free_bufs(struct ixgbe_tx_queue *txq)
> >>>> */
> >>>> txep = &txq->sw_ring_v[txq->tx_next_dd - (n - 1)];
> >>>> m = __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(txep[0].mbuf);
> >>>> + txep[0].mbuf = NULL;
> >>>> if (likely(m != NULL)) {
> >>>> free[0] = m;
> >>>> nb_free = 1;
> >>>> @@ -632,11 +633,21 @@ ixgbe_tx_free_bufs(struct ixgbe_tx_queue *txq)
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> for (i = 1; i < n; i++) {
> >>>> m = __rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(txep[i].mbuf);
> >>>> - if (m != NULL)
> >>>> + if (m != NULL) {
> >>>> rte_mempool_put(m->pool, m);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * No matter the mbufs have been put back to mempool or not,
> >>>> + * we should set the txep[i].mbuf to NULL
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for( i = 1; i < n; i++) {
> >>>> + txep[i].mbuf = NULL;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> /* buffers were freed, update counters */
> >>>> txq->nb_tx_free = (uint16_t)(txq->nb_tx_free + txq->tx_rs_thresh);
> >>>> txq->tx_next_dd = (uint16_t)(txq->tx_next_dd + txq->tx_rs_thresh);
> >>>> --
> >>>> 1.9.1
> >>>
> >>> NACK.
> >>> Thanks for looking into this code. But it's designed behavior, not an
> >>> issue.
> >>> BTW, if you want to send a new version, the tittle should be like this
> >>> [PATCH
> v2]
> >> ixgbe: ..., and add "--in-reply-to your original mail" when sending the
> >> mail,
> and
> >> add a v2 comments. You can reference the other's v2 patches for detail.
> >>>
> >
