Hi David,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:43:57 +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Hum, what bothers me is that you do not rely on the same criteria to
> re-attach the devices to nic_uio.
> See below.
>
> ?lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c | 48
> +++++++++------------------------
> ?1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> index 2354e84..f868dc8 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> [snip]
> @@ -195,11 +177,10 @@ nic_uio_probe (device_t dev)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ? int i;
>
> -? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < NUM_DEVICES; i++)
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (pci_get_vendor(dev) == devices[i].vend &&
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pci_get_device(dev) == devices[i].dev) {
> -
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?device_set_desc(dev, "Intel(R) DPDK PCI
> Device");
> +? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < num_detached; i++)
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (pci_get_vendor(dev) ==
> pci_get_vendor(detached_devices[i]) &&
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pci_get_device(dev) ==
> pci_get_device(detached_devices[i])) {
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?device_set_desc(dev, "DPDK PCI Device");
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return BUS_PROBE_SPECIFIC;
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>
> When going through the probe stuff, the device vendor and type are used as
> the matching criteria.
>
> @@ -256,7 +237,6 @@ static void
> ?nic_uio_load(void)
> ?{
> ? ? ? ? uint32_t bus, device, function;
> -? ? ? ?int i;
> ? ? ? ? device_t dev;
> ? ? ? ? char bdf_str[256];
> ? ? ? ? char *token, *remaining;
> @@ -295,17 +275,15 @@ nic_uio_load(void)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (dev == NULL)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? continue;
>
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < NUM_DEVICES; i++)
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (pci_get_vendor(dev) == devices[i].vend &&
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pci_get_device(dev) ==
> devices[i].dev) {
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (num_detached <
> MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) {
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ?printf("nic_uio_load: detaching and storing dev=%p\n", dev);
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ?detached_devices[num_detached++] = dev;
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?} else
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ?printf("nic_uio_load: reached MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES=%d. dev=%p won't be
> reattached\n",
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ?MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES, dev);
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?device_detach(dev);
> -? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?}
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (num_detached < MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) {
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?printf("nic_uio_load: detaching and storing
> dev=%p\n",
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? dev);
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?detached_devices[num_detached++] = dev;
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?} else {
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?printf("nic_uio_load: reached
> MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES=%d. dev=%p won't be reattached\n",
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES, dev);
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?}
> +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?device_detach(dev);
> ? ? ? ? }
> ?}
>
> But here at init time, the bdfs informations are used to detach the pci
> devices.
> I would say this is safer we have the same criteria in both cases.
> I think that the pci addresses are the best criteria since this is what
> the user gives.
> Don't we have them in the dev pointer ?
It looks like we can get them via pci_get_bus(), pci_get_slot(), and
pci_get_function(). Will add check for these 3 info instead of vendor
and device in probe to make it consistent.
>
> Btw, with this change, we would then be limited to MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES
> devices even if 128 pci devices looks quite big enough to me.
> This part could be reworked (later).
> --
> David Marchand
Thanks,
Rahul
