On 2025/1/8 20:21, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Caution: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/nsb for additional information.
The secordary process should not close the crypto device when
it exits because the primary process still manage the device.
There is no reason with occurring error log below when
secordary process exits without any operation on the crypto
device while primary process starts the device.
Case situation:
eal_bus_cleanup has been added in rte_eal_cleanup. But for
secondary process, eal_bus_cleanup will trigger vdev_cleanup
which trigger rte_vdev_driver to remove. Then crypto devices
will execute ipsec_mb_remove to rte_cryptodev_pmd_destroy.
Finially, rte_cryptodev_close will be called by secordary
process exit.
Error logs occur as below when the secordary process exit:
CRYPTODEV: rte_cryptodev_close() line 1453: Device 0 must be
stopped before closing
Function call trace: rte_eal_cleanup->eal_bus_cleanup->
vdev_cleanup->rte_vdev_driver_remove->ipsec_mb_remove->
rte_cryptodev_pmd_destroy->rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device->
rte_cryptodev_close
Signed-off-by: Yang Ming <ming.1.y...@nokia-sbell.com>
---
lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
index 85a4b46ac9..ed1021f635 100644
--- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
+++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
@@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device(struct
rte_cryptodev *cryptodev)
cryptodev_fp_ops_reset(rte_crypto_fp_ops + dev_id);
/* Close device only if device operations have been set */
- if (cryptodev->dev_ops) {
+ if (cryptodev->dev_ops && (rte_eal_process_type() ==
RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)) {
ret = rte_cryptodev_close(dev_id);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
I believe dev_close is actually not required in pmd_release_device.
Dev_close need to be called from the application separately before it is
released
which I think is already happening.
Adding more people for review.
Hi Akhil, I suppose the change of removing `dev_close` in
`pmd_release_device` requires much more effort and commit size because
this change will impact a lot of examples and cases. As there is no more
comments from other people, can we accept this patch as a little
improvement for the second process's scenario and wait for the entire
improvement from anyone who is interested in this entire work?
