> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qiu, Michael
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:17 AM
> To: Iremonger, Bernard; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Chen, Jing D; He, Shaopeng
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] fm10k: Free queues when close port
>
> On 6/26/2015 7:02 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Qiu, Michael
> >> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:30 AM
> >> To: dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Chen, Jing D; He, Shaopeng; Iremonger, Bernard; Qiu, Michael
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2 v4] fm10k: Free queues when close port
> >>
> >> When close a port, lots of memory should be released, such as
> >> software rings, queues, etc.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Qiu <michael.qiu at intel.com>
> >> ---
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > There are 2 comments inline
> >
> >> drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c | 37
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c
> >> b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c
> >> index 406c350..eba7228 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/fm10k/fm10k_ethdev.c
> >> @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ static void
> >> fm10k_MAC_filter_set(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, const u8 *mac, bool
> >> add); static void fm10k_MACVLAN_remove_all(struct rte_eth_dev
> *dev);
> >> +static void fm10k_tx_queue_release(void *queue); static void
> >> +fm10k_rx_queue_release(void *queue);
> >>
> >> static void
> >> fm10k_mbx_initlock(struct fm10k_hw *hw) @@ -809,11 +811,37 @@
> >> fm10k_dev_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >>
> >> PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
> >>
> >> - for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++)
> >> - fm10k_dev_tx_queue_stop(dev, i);
> >> + if (dev->data->tx_queues)
> >> + for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++)
> >> + fm10k_dev_tx_queue_stop(dev, i);
> >>
> >> - for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++)
> >> - fm10k_dev_rx_queue_stop(dev, i);
> >> + if (dev->data->rx_queues)
> >> + for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++)
> >> + fm10k_dev_rx_queue_stop(dev, i);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void
> >> +fm10k_dev_queue_release(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) {
> >> + int i;
> >> +
> >> + PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
> >> +
> >> + if (dev->data->tx_queues) {
> >> + for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_tx_queues; i++)
> >> + fm10k_tx_queue_release(dev->data-
> >>> tx_queues[i]);
> >> + rte_free(dev->data->tx_queues);
> >> + dev->data->tx_queues = NULL;
> > The memory for dev->data->tx_queues is not allocated in the fm10k
> > PMD, so it should probably not be released here.
> > I have submitted a patch today for rte_eth_dev.c to do this.
> > /dev/patchwork/patch/5829/
> >
> >> + dev->data->nb_tx_queues = 0;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (dev->data->rx_queues) {
> >> + for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++)
> >> + fm10k_rx_queue_release(dev->data-
> >>> rx_queues[i]);
> >> + rte_free(dev->data->rx_queues);
> >> + dev->data->rx_queues = NULL;
> > The memory for dev->data->rx_queues is not allocated in the fm10k
> > PMD, so it should probably not be released here.
> > I have submitted a patch today for rte_eth_dev.c to do this.
> > /dev/patchwork/patch/5829/
>
> Is it a good idea? What about to close the port for twice at a time?
> I think it is better to do it in rte_eth_dev_close(), I will give the
> comments to
> you.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
Hi Michael,
Could you take a look at the comments on
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/5829/
The consensus is that memory should be freed in the component that allocated it.
In my pmd hotplug patches I have used a flag to ensure that dev_close is not
called twice.
In the e1000 patch I have added a stopped flag to struct e1000_adapter.
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/5655/
Regards,
Bernard.
<snip>
