[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] service: fix race condition for MT unsafe service

Van Haaren, Harry harry.van.haaren at intel.com
Wed Apr 29 18:51:39 CEST 2020


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:31 PM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: thomas at monjalon.net; david.marchand at redhat.com; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; jerinj at marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com;
> gavin.hu at arm.com; nd at arm.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>; stable at dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/6] service: fix race condition for MT unsafe service
> 
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> 
> The MT unsafe service might get configured to run on another core
> while the service is running currently. This might result in the
> MT unsafe service running on multiple cores simultaneously. Use
> 'execute_lock' always when the service is MT unsafe.
> 
> Fixes: e9139a32f6e8 ("service: add function to run on app lcore")
> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> ---

Thanks for spinning a new revision - based on ML discussion previously,
it seems like the "use service-run-count" to avoid this race would be a
complex solution.

Suggesting the following;
1) Take the approach as per this patch, to always take the atomic, fixing the race condition.
2) Add an API to service-cores, which allows "committing" of mappings. Committing the mapping would imply that the mappings will not be changed in future. With runtime-remapping being removed from the equation, the existing branch-over-atomic optimization is valid again.

So this would offer applications two situations
A) No application change: possible performance regression due to atomic always taken.
B) Call "commit" API, and regain the performance as per previous DPDK versions.

Thoughts/opinions on the above?  I've flagged the rest of the patchset for review ASAP. Regards, -Harry

>  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 11 +++++------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> index 70d17a5..b8c465e 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> @@ -50,6 +50,10 @@ struct rte_service_spec_impl {
>  	uint8_t internal_flags;
> 
>  	/* per service statistics */
> +	/* Indicates how many cores the service is mapped to run on.
> +	 * It does not indicate the number of cores the service is running
> +	 * on currently.
> +	 */
>  	rte_atomic32_t num_mapped_cores;
>  	uint64_t calls;
>  	uint64_t cycles_spent;
> @@ -370,12 +374,7 @@ service_run(uint32_t i, struct core_state *cs, uint64_t
> service_mask,
> 
>  	cs->service_active_on_lcore[i] = 1;
> 
> -	/* check do we need cmpset, if MT safe or <= 1 core
> -	 * mapped, atomic ops are not required.
> -	 */
> -	const int use_atomics = (service_mt_safe(s) == 0) &&
> -				(rte_atomic32_read(&s->num_mapped_cores) > 1);
> -	if (use_atomics) {
> +	if (service_mt_safe(s) == 0) {
>  		if (!rte_atomic32_cmpset((uint32_t *)&s->execute_lock, 0, 1))
>  			return -EBUSY;
> 
> --
> 2.7.4



More information about the dev mailing list