> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Qi Z [mailto:qi.z.zh...@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:35 PM
> To: wangyunjian <wangyunj...@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: xudingke <xudin...@huawei.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix crash when on remove
>
> Hi:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wangyunjian [mailto:wangyunj...@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:49 AM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; xudin...@huawei.com; Yunjian
> > Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: fix crash when on remove
> >
> > From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
> >
> > The nic's interrupt source has some active handler, when the port
> > remove. We should cancel the delay handler before remove dev to
> > prevent executing the delay handler.
>
> Agree, thanks to capture this.
>
> >
> > Call Trace:
> > #0 ixgbe_disable_intr (hw=0x0, hw=0x0)
> > at /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c:852
> > #1 ixgbe_dev_interrupt_delayed_handler (param=0xadb9c0
> > <rte_eth_devices@@DPDK_2.2+33024>)
> > at /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c:4386
> > #2 0x00007f05782147af in eal_alarm_callback (arg=<optimized out>)
> > at /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/
> > eal_alarm.c:90
> > #3 0x00007f057821320a in eal_intr_process_interrupts (nfds=1,
> > events=0x7f056cbf3e88) at /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11/lib/
> > librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_interrupts.c:838
> > #4 eal_intr_handle_interrupts (totalfds=<optimized out>, pfd=18)
> > at /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/
> > eal_interrupts.c:885
> > #5 eal_intr_thread_main (arg=<optimized out>)
> > at /usr/src/debug/dpdk-18.11/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/
> > eal_interrupts.c:965
> > #6 0x00007f05708a0e45 in start_thread () from /usr/lib64/libpthread.so.0
> > #7 0x00007f056eb4ab5d in clone () from /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
> >
> > Fixes: 2866c5f1b87e ("ixgbe: support port hotplug")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > index 7493110..e9533e5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> > @@ -1336,6 +1336,9 @@ struct rte_ixgbe_xstats_name_off {
> > rte_delay_ms(100);
> > } while (retries++ < (10 + IXGBE_LINK_UP_TIME));
> >
> > + /* cancel the delay handler before remove dev */
> > + rte_eal_alarm_cancel(ixgbe_dev_interrupt_delayed_handler,
> eth_dev);
> > +
>
> I think it will be more safe to move this call ahead, the delayed handler may
> invoked application callback which may also invoke the ethdev API, but at
> this moment, we already reset ethdev, we still have chance to get problem,
> right?
> Is it better that we add this call at the beginning of dev_close?
>
> Regards
> Qi
The delay handler callback was canceled after unregistered interrupt handler
and the interrupt handler callback was unregistered after disabled uio. So I
added the call after rte_intr_callback_unregister.
I am not sure if we can add the disable uio, unregister interrupt handler at
the beginning of dev_close.
Thanks
Yunjian
>
>
> > /* uninitialize PF if max_vfs not zero */
> > ixgbe_pf_host_uninit(eth_dev);
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
