Hi Jeff

> From: Jeff Guo, Wednesday, April 18, 2018 4:38 PM
> Use testpmd for example, to show how an application smoothly handle
> failure when device being hot unplug. Once app detect the removal event,
> the callback would be called, it first stop the packet forwarding, then stop 
> the
> port, close the port and finally detach the port.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Guo <jia....@intel.com>
> ---
> v20->v19:
> remove the auto binding example.
> ---
>  app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> 5986ff7..3751901 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> @@ -1125,6 +1125,9 @@ run_pkt_fwd_on_lcore(struct fwd_lcore *fc,
> packet_fwd_t pkt_fwd)
>       tics_datum = rte_rdtsc();
>       tics_per_1sec = rte_get_timer_hz();
>  #endif
> +     if (hot_plug)
> +             rte_dev_handle_hot_unplug();
> +

Again, I don't understand why the application should configure it - it already 
started the hot-plug,
Can't the EAL handle this automatically when the user starts the hot-plug?

>       fsm = &fwd_streams[fc->stream_idx];
>       nb_fs = fc->stream_nb;
>       do {
> @@ -2069,6 +2072,26 @@ rmv_event_callback(void *arg)
>                       dev->device->name);
>  }
> 
> +static void
> +rmv_dev_event_callback(char *dev_name)
> +{
> +     uint16_t port_id;
> +     int ret;
> +
> +     ret = rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name(dev_name, &port_id);
> +     if (ret) {
> +             printf("can not get port by device %s!\n", dev_name);
> +             return;
> +     }
> +
> +     RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_RET(port_id);
> +     printf("removing port id:%u\n", port_id);
> +     stop_packet_forwarding();
> +     stop_port(port_id);
> +     close_port(port_id);
> +     detach_port(port_id);
> +}

We have also the rmv_event_callback() which is triggered by a RMV interrupt and 
running by the host thread.
What is the context thread of rmv_dev_event_callback()?
Shouldn't they be synchronized? Should we need both in the same time?

> +
>  /* This function is used by the interrupt thread */  static int
> eth_event_callback(portid_t port_id, enum rte_eth_event_type type, void
> *param, @@ -2130,9 +2153,7 @@ eth_dev_event_callback(char
> *device_name, enum rte_dev_event_type type,
>       case RTE_DEV_EVENT_REMOVE:
>               RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "The device: %s has been removed!\n",
>                       device_name);
> -             /* TODO: After finish failure handle, begin to stop
> -              * packet forward, stop port, close port, detach port.
> -              */
> +             rmv_dev_event_callback(device_name);
>               break;
>       case RTE_DEV_EVENT_ADD:
>               RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "The device: %s has been added!\n",
> @@ -2640,7 +2661,7 @@ main(int argc, char** argv)
>                       return -1;
>               }
>               eth_dev_event_callback_register();
> -
> +             rte_dev_handle_hot_unplug();
>       }
> 
>       if (start_port(RTE_PORT_ALL) != 0)
> --
> 2.7.4

Reply via email to