> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:56 AM > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monja...@6wind.com>; Horton, Remy > <remy.hor...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:40:50PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:32:23AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > On 1/23/2017 11:24 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:05:25AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +- > > > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > >>>>>>>> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > >>>>>>>> index 4790faf..61f44e2 100644 > > > >>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > >>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > >>>>>>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * > > > >>>>>>>> return NULL; > > > >>>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> - memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, > > > >>>>>>>> sizeof(*eth_dev->data)); > > > >>>>>>>> + memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct > > > >>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_data)); > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Not directly related to the this issue, but, after fix, this may > > > >>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>> issues with secondary process. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> There were patches sent to fix this. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I mean this one: > > > >>>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process > > > >>>>> model") should have fixed it. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Think about case, where secondary process uses a virtual PMD, which > > > >>>> does > > > >>>> a rte_eth_dev_allocate() call, shouldn't this corrupt primary process > > > >>>> device data? > > > >>> > > > >>> Yes, it may. However, I doubt that's the typical usage. > > > >> > > > >> But this is a use case, and broken now, > > > > > > > > I thought it was broken since the beginning? > > > > > > No, memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], ...) breaks it. > > > > Oh, you were talking about that particular case Remy's patch meant to > > fix. > > > > > >> and fix is known. > > > > > > > > And there is already a fix? > > > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html > > > > Yes, it should fix that issue. > > Well, few more thoughts: it may fix the crash issue Remy saw, but it > looks like more a workaround to me. Basically, if primary and secondary > shares a same port id, they should point to same device. Otherwise, > primary process may use eth_dev->data for a device A, while the > secondary process may use it for another device, as you said, it > could be a vdev. > > In such case, there is no way we could continue safely. That said, > the given patch avoids the total reset of eth_dev->data, while it > continues reset the eth_dev->data->name, which is wrong. > > So it's not a proper fix. > > Again, I think it's more about the usage. If primary starts with > a nic device A, while the secondary starts with a nic device B, > there is no way they could work well (unless they use different > port id).
Why not? I think this is possible. They just need to be initialized properly, so each rte_eth_devices[port_id]->data, etc. point to the right place. Konstantin > > --yliu > > > One question: do Remy or you regularly > > run some multiple process test cases (and with vdev both in primary > > and secondary process)?
