Hi,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Junxiao Shi
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:38 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [EXT] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: free memzone when releasing
> cryptodev
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> When a cryptodev is created in a primary process, rte_cryptodev_data_alloc
> reserves a memzone.
> However, this memzone was not released when the cryptodev is uninitialized.
> After that, new cryptodev cannot be created due to memzone name conflict.
>
> This commit frees the memzone when a cryptodev is uninitialized, fixing this
> bug. This approach is chosen instead of keeping and reusing the old memzone,
> because the new cryptodev could belong to a different NUMA socket.
>
> Also, rte_cryptodev_data pointer is now properly recorded in
> cryptodev_globals.data array.
>
> Bugzilla ID: 105
>
> Signed-off-by: Junxiao Shi <g...@mail1.yoursunny.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c | 44
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> index 00c2cf4..666dfea 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> @@ -653,6 +653,31 @@ rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(uint8_t dev_id, struct
> rte_cryptodev_data **data,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline int
> +rte_cryptodev_data_free(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_data
> +**data) {
> + char mz_name[RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> + const struct rte_memzone *mz;
> + int n;
> +
> + /* generate memzone name */
> + n = snprintf(mz_name, sizeof(mz_name), "rte_cryptodev_data_%u",
> dev_id);
> + if (n >= (int)sizeof(mz_name))
> + return -EINVAL;
[Anoob] Is the above check needed?
> +
> + mz = rte_memzone_lookup(mz_name);
> + if (mz == NULL)
> + return -ENOMEM;
[Anoob] Is the return value correct? Shouldn't it be -EINVAL?
@Akhil, thoughts?
> +
> + RTE_ASSERT(*data == mz->addr);
> + *data = NULL;
> +
> + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> + return rte_memzone_free(mz);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static uint8_t
> rte_cryptodev_find_free_device_index(void)
> {
> @@ -687,16 +712,16 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_allocate(const char *name, int
> socket_id)
> cryptodev = rte_cryptodev_pmd_get_dev(dev_id);
>
> if (cryptodev->data == NULL) {
> - struct rte_cryptodev_data *cryptodev_data =
> - cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
> + struct rte_cryptodev_data **cryptodev_data =
> + &cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
>
> - int retval = rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(dev_id, &cryptodev_data,
> + int retval = rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(dev_id, cryptodev_data,
> socket_id);
>
> - if (retval < 0 || cryptodev_data == NULL)
> + if (retval < 0 || *cryptodev_data == NULL)
> return NULL;
>
> - cryptodev->data = cryptodev_data;
> + cryptodev->data = *cryptodev_data;
>
> strlcpy(cryptodev->data->name, name,
> RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> @@ -724,13 +749,20 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device(struct
> rte_cryptodev *cryptodev)
> if (cryptodev == NULL)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + uint8_t dev_id = cryptodev->data->dev_id;
> +
[Anoob] Variables need to be declared at the start of the function.
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html
> /* Close device only if device operations have been set */
> if (cryptodev->dev_ops) {
> - ret = rte_cryptodev_close(cryptodev->data->dev_id);
> + ret = rte_cryptodev_close(dev_id);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> }
>
> + struct rte_cryptodev_data **cryptodev_data =
> &cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
[Anoob] Same comment as above
> + ret = rte_cryptodev_data_free(dev_id, cryptodev_data);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> cryptodev->attached = RTE_CRYPTODEV_DETACHED;
> cryptodev_globals.nb_devs--;
> return 0;
> --
> 2.7.4
