> -----Original Message----- > From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com> > Sent: 1/11/2024 16:27 > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>; Xu, HailinX > <hailinx...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Abhishek Marathe <abhishek.mara...@microsoft.com>; Ali > Alnubani <alia...@nvidia.com>; benjamin.wal...@intel.com; sta...@dpdk.org; > David Christensen <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Hemant Agrawal > <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob > <jer...@marvell.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Ju- > Hyoung Lee <juh...@microsoft.com>; Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>; > Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Pei Zhang <pezh...@redhat.com>; > qian.q...@intel.com; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact- > Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>; Yanghang Liu > <yangh...@redhat.com>; yuan.p...@intel.com; zhaoyan.c...@intel.com > Subject: Re: 22.11.4 patches review and test > > Hi, > > On 1/11/24 07:32, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote: > > Hi Hainlin, > > > > Thanks very much for test test and report! > > Let me know once any progress with the known issue. > > > > Thanks, > > Xueming. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Xu, HailinX <hailinx...@intel.com> > >> Sent: 1/11/2024 9:42 > >> To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>; sta...@dpdk.org > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Abhishek Marathe <abhishek.mara...@microsoft.com>; > >> Ali Alnubani <alia...@nvidia.com>; benjamin.wal...@intel.com; David > >> Christensen <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Hemant Agrawal > >> <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; Jerin > >> Jacob <jer...@marvell.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; > >> Ju-Hyoung Lee <juh...@microsoft.com>; Kevin Traynor > >> <ktray...@redhat.com>; Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Pei Zhang > >> <pezh...@redhat.com>; qian.q...@intel.com; Raslan Darawsheh > >> <rasl...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon > >> (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>; Yanghang Liu <yangh...@redhat.com>; > >> yuan.p...@intel.com; zhaoyan.c...@intel.com > >> Subject: RE: 22.11.4 patches review and test > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Xueming Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 3:19 PM > >>> To: sta...@dpdk.org > >>> Cc: xuemi...@nvidia.com; dev@dpdk.org; Abhishek Marathe > >>> <abhishek.mara...@microsoft.com>; Ali Alnubani <alia...@nvidia.com>; > >>> benjamin.wal...@intel.com; David Christensen > >>> <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; > >>> Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob > >>> <jer...@marvell.com>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; > >>> Ju-Hyoung Lee <juh...@microsoft.com>; Kevin Traynor > >>> <ktray...@redhat.com>; Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Pei Zhang > >>> <pezh...@redhat.com>; qian.q...@intel.com; Raslan Darawsheh > >>> <rasl...@nvidia.com>; Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; > >>> Yanghang Liu <yangh...@redhat.com>; yuan.p...@intel.com; > >>> zhaoyan.c...@intel.com > >>> Subject: 22.11.4 patches review and test > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Here is a list of patches targeted for stable release 22.11.4. > >>> > >>> The planned date for the final release is 5th January. > >>> > >>> Please help with testing and validation of your use cases and report > >>> any issues/results with reply-all to this mail. For the final > >>> release the fixes and reported validations will be added to the release > >>> notes. > >>> > >>> A release candidate tarball can be found at: > >>> > >>> https://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/tag/?id=v22.11.4-rc3 > >>> > >>> These patches are located at branch 22.11 of dpdk-stable repo: > >>> https://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable/ > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> Xueming Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com> > >> > >> Update the test status for Intel part. dpdk22.11.4-rc3 all validation test > >> done. > >> Found 1 virtio bug. > >> > >> new issue: > >> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1338: virtio-user can't receive > >> packet: > >> this test only on SPR -Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8490H --Intel > >> development is investigating > > > > Maxime, seems the issue related to patch "vhost: fix checking > > virtqueue access in stats API", Could you please take a look? > > I will reply in the Bz, but there seems to be 2 backporting issues: > > 1. We miss the unlock on return 0: > > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost.c b/lib/vhost/vhost.c index > 4edb76d0dd..6e1bba4391 > 100644 > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost.c > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost.c > @@ -2070,6 +2070,12 @@ rte_vhost_get_monitor_addr(int vid, uint16_t > queue_id, > if (vq == NULL) > return -1; > > + if (!rte_spinlock_trylock(&vq->access_lock)) > + return -1; > + > + if (unlikely(!vq->access_ok)) > + goto out_unlock; > + > if (vq_is_packed(dev)) { > struct vring_packed_desc *desc; > desc = vq->desc_packed; > @@ -2090,6 +2096,11 @@ rte_vhost_get_monitor_addr(int vid, uint16_t > queue_id, > } > > return 0; <== We miss an unlock here > + > +out_unlock: > + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->access_lock); > + > + return -1; > } > > The original patch does it like this: > > } > > - return 0; > +out_unlock: > + rte_rwlock_read_unlock(&vq->access_lock); > + > + return ret; > } > > > 2. Some unrelated change is introduced: > > @@ -2157,6 +2168,7 @@ int rte_vhost_vring_stats_reset(int vid, uint16_t > queue_id) > { > struct virtio_net *dev = get_device(vid); > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq; > + int ret = 0; > > if (dev == NULL) > return -1; > > Above change fixes a build issue introduce in an earlier patch. > > How do you want to proceed? Do you want a patch on top of 22.11.4?
Thanks for the prompt response, let's have a patch on top of 22.11.4. > > Regards, > Maxime > > >> > >> # Basic Intel(R) NIC testing > >> * Build & CFLAG compile: cover the build test combination with latest > GCC/Clang > >> version and the popular OS revision such as > >> Ubuntu20.04, Ubuntu22.04, Fedora38, RHEL8.7, RHEL9.2, FreeBSD13.2, > SUSE15, > >> CentOS7.9, openEuler22.03-SP1，OpenAnolis8.8 etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * PF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including > >> RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * VF(i40e, ixgbe): test scenarios including VF- > >> RTE_FLOW/TSO/Jumboframe/checksum offload/VLAN/VXLAN, etc. > >> > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * PF/VF(ice): test scenarios including Switch features/Package > Management/Flow > >> Director/Advanced Tx/Advanced RSS/ACL/DCF/Flexible Descriptor, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * Intel NIC single core/NIC performance: test scenarios including PF/VF > >> single > >> core performance test, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> * IPsec: test scenarios including ipsec/ipsec-gw/ipsec library basic test - > >> QAT&SW/FIB library, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> > >> # Basic cryptodev and virtio testing > >> * Virtio: both function and performance test are covered. Such as > >> PVP/Virtio_loopback/virtio-user loopback/virtio-net VM2VM perf > >> testing/VMAWARE ESXI 8.0, etc. > >> - All test done. found 1 new issue. > >> * Cryptodev: > >> *Function test: test scenarios including Cryptodev API > >> testing/CompressDev > ISA- > >> L/QAT/ZLIB PMD Testing/FIPS, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> *Performance test: test scenarios including Thoughput > Performance/Cryptodev > >> Latency, etc. > >> - All test done. No new dpdk issue is found. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Xu, Hailin > >> > >
