Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmi...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>;
> Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: make flow API primary/secondary
> process safe
>
> On 3/16/2021 11:48 PM, Suanming Mou wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:27 AM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Suanming Mou
> >> <suanmi...@nvidia.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: make flow API primary/secondary process
> >> safe
> >>
> >> Posix mutex are not by default safe for protecting for usage from
> >> multiple processes. The flow ops mutex could be used by both primary
> >> and secondary processes.
> >
> > Process safe is something more widely scope. I assume it should be another
> feature but not a bugfix for thread-safe?
> > And the fag RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE we have added is just
> thread safe.
> >
>
> Hi Suanming,
>
> I think 'RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE' flag and what this patch
> address are different issues.
>
> 'RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE' is to add/remove synchronization
> support for flow APIs, that is for thread safety as flag name suggests.
>
> This patch is to solve the problem for multi process, where commit log
> describes
> as posix mutex is not safe for multiple process.
So for PMDs which not set the RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE capability bit,
they will have the process level protection in multi-process.
For PMDs which set the RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE capability bit, this
change does not help with these PMDs. If the PMD with
RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE capability bit internally does not support
multi-process, they may still suffer crash etc. (If I understand correctly, mlx
PMD level now should support multi-process, but better to have the confirmation
from maintainers with much deeper level).
I assume this patch solves the posix mutex for multi-process only, hard to say
the flow API primary/secondary process safe after that patch.
>
>
> Stephen,
> Are you aware of any downside setting 'PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED' attribute
> to the
> mutex? Any possible performance implications?
>
> Ori,
> Since mlx is heavily using the flow API, is it possible to test this patch? If
> there is no negative impact, I think we can get this patch, what do you think?
>
> >>
> >> Bugzilla ID: 662
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> >> Fixes: 80d1a9aff7f6 ("ethdev: make flow API thread safe")
> >> Cc: suanmi...@nvidia.com
> >> ---
> >> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 6 +++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> index
> >> 6f514c388b4e..d1024df408a5 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >> @@ -470,6 +470,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_allocate(const char *name) {
> >> uint16_t port_id;
> >> struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
> >> + pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> >> size_t name_len;
> >>
> >> name_len = strnlen(name, RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN); @@ -506,7
> >> +507,10 @@ rte_eth_dev_allocate(const char *name)
> >> strlcpy(eth_dev->data->name, name, sizeof(eth_dev->data->name));
> >> eth_dev->data->port_id = port_id;
> >> eth_dev->data->mtu = RTE_ETHER_MTU;
> >> - pthread_mutex_init(ð_dev->data->flow_ops_mutex, NULL);
> >> +
> >> + pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> >> + pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
> >>
> >> + pthread_mutex_init(ð_dev->data->flow_ops_mutex, &attr);
> >>
> >> unlock:
> >> rte_spinlock_unlock(ð_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
> >> --
> >> 2.30.2
> >
