Thank you for help, I'll do it this way.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 9:25 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > > On 2022-06-10 08:04, Sarosh Arif wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:26 PM Stephen Hemminger > > <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:47:43 +0000 > >> bugzi...@dpdk.org wrote: > >> > >>> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030 > >>> > >>> Bug ID: 1030 > >>> Summary: rte_malloc() and rte_free() get stuck when used with > >>> signal handler > >>> Product: DPDK > >>> Version: 22.03 > >>> Hardware: All > >>> OS: Linux > >>> Status: UNCONFIRMED > >>> Severity: normal > >>> Priority: Normal > >>> Component: core > >>> Assignee: dev@dpdk.org > >>> Reporter: sarosh.a...@emumba.com > >>> Target Milestone: --- > >>> > >>> Created attachment 205 > >>> --> https://bugs.dpdk.org/attachment.cgi?id=205&action=edit > >>> calls rte_malloc and rte_free in the handler and main code > >>> > >>> I have a dpdk based application which uses rte_malloc() and rte_free() > >>> frequently in it's main code. The general method to close the application > >>> is > >>> though sending SIGINT. The application has a signal handler written for > >>> cleanup > >>> purposes before closing the application. The handler also uses rte_free() > >>> to > >>> release some of the memory during cleanup. The application gets stuck in a > >>> deadlock. > >>> > >>> > >>> Upon investigation I found out that both rte_free() and rte_malloc() use > >>> rte_spinlock_lock() function to place a lock on heap. While this lock is > >>> placed > >>> and the application receives SIGINT, it goes into the handler without > >>> releasing > >>> the lock. Since the handler itself calls rte_free() which tries to > >>> acquire the > >>> lock it gets stuck. > >>> > >>> > >>> I have attached a sample application to reproduce this problem. > >>> > >>> > >>> Steps to reproduce this problem: > >>> > >>> 1. compile the code provided in attachment with any version of dpdk > >>> 2. run the compiled binary > >>> 3. press ctrl+c till the prints stop > >>> > >>> Actual Results: > >>> The application gets stuck in either rte_free() or rte_malloc() > >>> > >>> Expected Results: > >>> Application should allocate and free the memory without getting stuck > >>> > >> > >> rte_malloc and rte_free are not async sigsafe() > >> > > Oh, I did not know that. This should be mentioned in the documentation. > > Is there anything except <rte_atomic.h> that is/should be async-signal-safe? > > >> but then again regular glibc is not either. > > Memory allocated with glibc malloc() is freed by itself upon closing > > the application. My application runs as a secondary process, and it > > needs to use rte_malloc() specifically because the memory should be > > shared between the two processes. If I don't free it upon closure it > > would just be leaked. Is there any other solution for it? > > The standard solution is that the signal handler using some appropriate, > async-signal-safe way talks to the main thread, which then goes on to > cleanly terminate the application. > > A write() to an fd, or an atomic store to a flag are two options.
