On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:38:58AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:56:41AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 04:55:53PM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > When using vector Rx mode (use_simple_rx = 1), vq->vq_descx[] is not
> > > kept up to date. To properly detach the mbufs in this case, browse
> > > sw_ring[] instead, as it's done in virtqueue_rxvq_flush().
> > > 
> > > Since we need virtio_get_queue_type(), also move this function in
> > > virtqueue.h as a static inline.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: fc3d66212fed ("virtio: add vector Rx")
> > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Tiwei,
> > > 
> > > While it passes my test plan, please carefully check that what I did in
> > > virtqueue_detatch_unused() is correct. I tried to reproduce what is done
> > > in virtqueue_rxvq_flush(), but I may be mistaking due to the different
> > > ring layout assumption and mbuf management between standard and vector.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Olivier
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c | 11 -----------
> > >  drivers/net/virtio/virtqueue.c     | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > >  drivers/net/virtio/virtqueue.h     | 11 +++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > [...]
> > >  struct rte_mbuf *
> > >  virtqueue_detatch_unused(struct virtqueue *vq)
> > >  {
> > > + struct virtio_hw *hw = vq->hw;
> > >   struct rte_mbuf *cookie;
> > >   int idx;
> > > + int type = virtio_get_queue_type(hw, vq->vq_queue_index);
> > > +
> > > + if (vq == NULL)
> > > +         return NULL;
> > >  
> > > - if (vq != NULL)
> > > -         for (idx = 0; idx < vq->vq_nentries; idx++) {
> > > + for (idx = 0; idx < vq->vq_nentries; idx++) {
> > > +         if (hw->use_simple_rx && type == VTNET_RQ) {
> > > +                 cookie = vq->sw_ring[idx];
> > > +                 if (cookie != NULL) {
> > > +                         vq->sw_ring[idx] = NULL;
> > 
> > Thanks for working on this!
> > 
> > The vq->sw_ring[idx] isn't zeroed during Rx. So besides the
> > check of (cookie != NULL), some other check is also needed
> > to avoid freeing the mbufs already delivered to application.
> > 
> > The mbufs in below interval belong to application:
> > 
> > start: sw_ring[vq->vq_avail_idx & (vq->vq_nentries - 1)] (included)
> > end: sw_ring[(vq->vq_avail_idx + vq->vq_free_cnt) & (vq->vq_nentries - 1)] 
> > (excluded)
> > 
> > PS. (vq->vq_avail_idx & (vq->vq_nentries - 1)) can be greater than
> >     (vq->vq_avail_idx + vq->vq_free_cnt) & (vq->vq_nentries - 1).
> 
> Thank you for the review. What about something like this?
> 
> struct rte_mbuf *
> virtqueue_detach_unused(struct virtqueue *vq)
> {
>       struct rte_mbuf *cookie;
>       struct virtio_hw *hw;
>       uint16_t start, end;
>       int type, idx;
> 
>       if (vq == NULL)
>               return NULL;
> 
>       hw = vq->hw;
>       type = virtio_get_queue_type(hw, vq->vq_queue_index);
>       start = vq->vq_avail_idx & (vq->vq_nentries - 1);
>       end = (vq->vq_avail_idx + vq->vq_free_cnt) & (vq->vq_nentries - 1);
>       end = (vq->vq_avail_idx + vq->vq_free_cnt) & (vq->vq_nentries - 1);
> 
>       for (idx = 0; idx < vq->vq_nentries; idx++) {
>               if (hw->use_simple_rx && type == VTNET_RQ) {
>                       if (start <= end && idx >= start && idx < end)
>                               continue;
>                       if (start > end && (idx >= start || idx < end))
>                               continue;
>                       cookie = vq->sw_ring[idx];
>                       if (cookie == NULL)
>                               continue;
>                       vq->sw_ring[idx] = NULL;
>                       return cookie;
>               } else {
>                       cookie = vq->vq_descx[idx].cookie;
>                       if (cookie != NULL) {
>                               vq->vq_descx[idx].cookie = NULL;
>                               return cookie;
>                       }
>               }
>       }
> 
>       return NULL;
> }

Apart from the repeated line, it looks good to me. Thanks!

Thanks,
Tiwei

Reply via email to