On 2016/2/2 19:03, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > [...]
>>>> I don't think i40e miss it, because it not the right please to disable >>>> interrupt. >>>> because all interrupts are enabled in init stage. >>>> >>>> Actually, ixgbe enable the interrupt in init stage, but in dev_start, it >>>> disable it >>>> first and re-enable, so it just the same with doing nothing about >>>> interrupt. >>>> >>>> Just think below: >>>> >>>> 1. start the port.(interrupt already enabled in init stage, disable --> >>>> re-enable) >>>> 2. stop the port.(disable interrupt) >>>> 3. start port again(Try to disable, but failed, already disabled) >>>> >>>> Would you think the code has issue? >>> [Zhang, Helin] in ixgbe PMD, it can be seen that uninit() calls dev_close(), >>> which calls dev_stop(). So I think the disabling can be done only in >>> dev_stop(). >>> All others can make use of dev_stop to disable the interrupt. >> As I said, if it is in dev_stop, it will has issue when dev_start --> >> dev_stop --> dev_start, this also could applied in i40e and fm10k. If >> you want to put it in dev_stop, better to remove enable interrupts in >> init stage, and only put it in dev_start. > We can't remove enabling interrupt at init stage and put it only in > dev_start(). > That means PF couldn't handle interrupts from VF till dev_start() will be > executed on PF > - which could never happen. > For same reason we can't disable all interrupts in dev_stop(). > See: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027238.html Hi, Konstantin Yes, you are right. So the only way to fix this issue should remove it in dev_stop(), and left it in uinit() stage, which my patch does. Am I right? Thanks, Michael > Konstantin > >> Thanks, >> Michael >>> Regards, >>> Helin >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Michael >>>> >>>>> Maybe we can follow fm10k's style. >>>>> >>>>>> On other hand, if we remove it in dev_stop, any side effect? In ixgbe >>>>>> start, it will always disable it first and then re-enable it, so it's >>>>>> safe. >>>>> I think you mean we can disable intr anyway even if it has been disabled. >>>> Actually, we couldn't, DPDK call VFIO ioctl to kernel to disable >>>> interrupts, and >>>> if we try disable twice, it will return and error. >>>> That's why I mean we need a flag to show the interrupts stats. If it >>>> already >>>> disabled, we do not need call in to kernel. just return and give a warning >>>> message. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Michael >>>> >>>>> Sounds more like why we don't >>>>> need this patch :) >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Michael >
