30/09/2021 08:28, Huisong Li: > Hi. Thomas > > I've summed up our previous discussion. > > Can you look at the final proposal again? > > Do you think we should deal with the problem better?
I don't understand what is the final proposal. > 在 2021/9/27 9:44, Huisong Li 写道: > > > > 在 2021/9/27 3:16, Thomas Monjalon 写道: > >> 26/09/2021 14:20, Huisong Li: > >>> 在 2021/9/18 16:46, Thomas Monjalon 写道: > >>>> 18/09/2021 05:24, Huisong Li: > >>>>> 在 2021/9/17 20:50, Thomas Monjalon 写道: > >>>>>> 17/09/2021 04:13, Huisong Li: > >>>>>>> How should PMD free it? What should we do? Any good suggestions? > >>>>>> Check that there is no other port sharing the same PCI device, > >>>>>> then call the PMD callback for rte_pci_remove_t. > >>>>> For primary and secondary processes, their rte_pci_device is > >>>>> independent. > >>>> Yes it requires to free on both primary and secondary. > >>>> > >>>>> Is this for a scenario where there are multiple representor ports > >>>>> under > >>>>> the same PCI address in the same processe? > >>>> A PCI device can have multiple physical or representor ports. > >>> Got it. > >>>>>>> Would it be more appropriate to do this in rte_eal_cleanup() if it > >>>>>>> cann't be done in the API above? > >>>>>> rte_eal_cleanup is a last cleanup for what was not done earlier. > >>>>>> We could do that but first we should properly free devices when > >>>>>> closed. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Totally, it is appropriate that rte_eal_cleanup is responsible for > >>>>> releasing devices under the pci bus. > >>>> Yes, but if a device is closed while the rest of the app keep running, > >>>> we should not wait to free it. > >>> From this point of view, it seems to make sense. However, > >>> according to > >>> the OVS-DPDK > >>> > >>> usage, it calls dev_close() first, and then check whether all ports > >>> under the PCI address are > >>> > >>> closed to free rte_pci_device by calling rte_dev_remove(). > >>> > >>> > >>> If we do not want the user to be aware of this, and we want > >>> rte_pci_device to be freed > >>> > >>> in a timely manner. Can we add a code logic calculating the number of > >>> ports under a PCI address > >>> > >>> and calling rte_dev_remove() to rte_eth_dev_close() to free > >>> rte_pci_device and delete it from rte_pci_bus? > >>> > >>> If we do, we may need to make some extra work, otherwise some > >>> applications, such as OVS-DPDK, will > >>> > >>> fail due to a second call to rte_dev_remove(). > >> I don't understand the proposal. > >> Please could explain again the code path? > > > > 1. This RFC patch intended to free rte_pci_device in DPDK app by calling > > > > rte_dev_remove() after calling dev_close(). > > > > 2. For the above-mentioned usage in OVS-DPDK, please see function > > > > netdev_dpdk_destruct() in lib/netdev-dpdk.c. > > > > 3. Later, you suggest that the release of rte_pci_device should be done > > > > in the dev_close() API, not in the rte_eal_init() which is not real-time. > > > > To sum up, the above proposal comes out. > > > >> It may deserve a separate mail thread. > >> > >> > >> . > > . >
