[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/failsafe: replace local sub-device with shared data

[Raslan Darawsheh]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:02 PM
> To: Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland at mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; stephen at networkplumber.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net/failsafe: replace local sub-device
> with shared data
> 
> 06/03/2019 11:46, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 06:58:04PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 05/03/2019 18:38, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > > > What happens when a primary process closes a device before a
> secondary?
> > > > Is the secondary unable to stop / close its own then? Isn't there
> > > > some missing uninit?
> > >
> > > Is the secondary process supposed to do any closing?
> > > The device management should be done only by the primary process.
> > >
> > > Note: anyway all this hotplug related code should be dropped from
> > > failsafe to be replaced by EAL hotplug management.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know, I've never used secondary process.
> > However, cursory reading the code of rte_eth_dev_close(), I don't see
> > a guard against calling it from a secondary process?
> 
> Yes indeed, there is no guard.
> That's something not clear in DPDK, previously we were attaching some
> vdevs in secondary only.
> 
> > Reading code like
> >
> >    rte_free(dev->data->rx_queues);
> >    dev->data->rx_queues = NULL;
> >
> > within makes me think the issue has been seen at least once, where
> > shared data is freed multiple times, so I guessed some secondary
> > processes were calling it. Maybe they are not meant to, but what
> > prevents them from being badly written?
> >
> > Also, given rte_dev_remove IPC call to transfer the order to the
> > primary, it seems that at least secondary processes are expected to
> > call
> > rte_dev_remove() at some point? So are they only authorized to call
> > rte_dev_remove() (to manage hotplug), but not rte_eth_dev_close()? Is
> > there a specific documentation detailing the design of secondary
> > process and the related responsibilities in the lifetime of a device?
> > How are they synching their rte_eth_devices list if they are not
> > calling rte_eth_dev_close(), ever?
> 
> All these calls should be done in primary.
> The IPC mechanism calls the attach/detach in secondary at EAL level.
> The PMDs does the bridge between EAL device and ethdev port status.
> But you are right, there can be a sync issue if closing an ethdev port and not
> removing the EAL device.
> This is a generic question about deciding whether we want all ethdev ports to
> be synced in multi-process or not.
> 
> In failsafe context, we are closing the EAL device and change the state of the
> sub-device accordingly. So I think there is no issue.
> 
> > > > This seems dangerous to me. Why not instead allocating a
> > > > per-process slab of memory that would hold the relevant references
> > > > and outlive the shared data (a per-process rte_eth_dev private data...).
> > >
> > > Which data do you think should be allocated per process?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [-------- SHARED SPACE --------------] [-- PER-PROCESS --------]
> > +--------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | +------------------+                +- rte_eth_devices[n] -+ |
> > | |rte_eth_dev_data  |<---------------+ data                 | | PRIMARY
> > | |                  |   +dev_priv-+  |                      | |
> > | |      dev_private +-->|         |  |                      | |
> > | |              ... |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |          port_id |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |                  |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |                  |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |                  |   |         |  +----------------------+ |
> > | |                  |   |         |  +- rte_eth_devices[n] -+ |
> > | |                  |   |         |  |                      | | SECONDARY
> > | |                  |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |                  |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |                  |   |         |  |                      | |
> > | |                  |   +---------+  |                      | |
> > | |                  |<---------------+ data                 | |
> > | +------------------+                +----------------------+ |
> > +--------------------------------------------------------------+
> >
> > Here port_id is used within fail-safe to get back to rte_eth_devices[n].
> > This disappears once a device is closed, as all shared space is zeroed.
> >
> > This means that sometimes ETH(sdev) and PORT_ID(sdev) is correct, and
> > at some point it is not anymore, once a sub-device has been closed.
> > This seems dangerous.
> 
> The state of the sub-device is changed.
> I don't see any issue.
> 
> > I was thinking initially that allocating a place where each sdev would
> > store their rte_eth_devices / port_id back-reference could alleviate
> > the issue, meaning that the fail-safe would not zero it on
> > sdev_close(), and it would remain valid for the lifetime of a
> > sub-device, so even when a sub-device is in DEV_PROBED state.
> >
> > But now that I think about it, it could probably be simpler: instead
> > of using (ETH(sdev)->data->port_id) for the port_id of an sdev
> > (meaning that it is dependent on the lifetime of the sdev, instead of
> > the lifetime of the failsafe), the port-id itself should be stored in
> > the sub_device structure. This structure will be available for the
> > lifetime of the failsafe, and the port_id is correct accross all processes.
> >
> > So PORT_ID(sdev) would be defined to something like (sdev->port_id),
> > and
> > ETH(sdev) would be (&rte_eth_devices[PORT_ID(sdev)]). It would remain
> > correct even once the primary has closed the sub-device.
> >
> > What do you think? Do you agree that the current state is dangerous,
> > and do you think the solution would alleviate the issue? Maybe the
> > concern is unfounded and the only issue is within fs_dev_remove().
> 
> Yes it is only seen in fs_dev_remove().
> I discussed about your proposal with Raslan, and we agree we could change
> from sub_device.data to sub_device.port_id, it may be more future-proof.
> 
> I have only one doubt: look at the macro in this patch:
> 
> #define ETH(sdev) \
> 	((sdev)->data == NULL ? NULL : &rte_eth_devices[(sdev)->data-
> >port_id])
> 
> The NULL check cannot be done with a port id.
> I think it was needed to manage one case. Raslan?

That's right since we need it for fs_tx_unsafe, to add a protection for plugged out devices during TX.
> 


> 
Kindest regards
Raslan Darawsheh