[PATCH v6 0/9] Lock annotations

[Xia, Chenbo]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 4:08 PM
> To: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; maxime.coquelin at redhat.com; stephen at networkplumber.org;
> Hu, Jiayu <jiayu.hu at intel.com>; Wang, YuanX <yuanx.wang at intel.com>; Ding,
> Xuan <xuan.ding at intel.com>; mb at smartsharesystems.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Lock annotations
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:59 AM Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia at intel.com> wrote:
> > > Subject: [PATCH v6 0/9] Lock annotations
> > >
> > > vhost internals involves multiple locks to protect data access by
> > > multiple threads.
> > >
> > > This series uses clang thread safety checks [1] to catch issues during
> > > compilation: EAL spinlock, seqlock and rwlock are annotated and vhost
> > > code is instrumented so that clang can statically check correctness.
> > >
> > > Those annotations are quite heavy to maintain because the full path of
> > > code must be annotated (as can be seen in the vhost datapath code),
> > > but I think it is worth using.
> > >
> > > This has been tested against the whole tree and some fixes are already
> > > flying on the mailing list (see [2] for a list).
> > >
> > > If this first series is merged, I will prepare a followup series for
> EAL
> > > and other libraries.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.html
> > > 2:
> > >
> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/bundle/dmarchand/lock_fixes/?state=*&archive=bo
> > > th
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Marchand
> > >
> > > Changes since v5:
> > > - rebased after lib/vhost updates (patches 5 and 7),
> > >
> > > Changes since v4:
> > > - masked annotations from Doxygen as it seems confused with some
> > >   constructs,
> > > - fixed typos,
> > >
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > David Marchand (9):
> > >   eal: annotate spinlock, rwlock and seqlock
> > >   vhost: simplify need reply handling
> > >   vhost: terminate when access lock is not taken
> > >   vhost: annotate virtqueue access lock
> > >   vhost: annotate async accesses
> > >   vhost: always take IOTLB lock
> > >   vhost: annotate IOTLB lock
> > >   vhost: annotate vDPA device list accesses
> > >   vhost: enable lock check
> > >
> > >  doc/api/doxy-api.conf.in                      |  11 ++
> > >  .../prog_guide/env_abstraction_layer.rst      |  24 ++++
> > >  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_03.rst        |   5 +
> > >  drivers/meson.build                           |   5 +
> > >  lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h          |  27 +++-
> > >  lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h        |  31 +++--
> > >  lib/eal/include/meson.build                   |   1 +
> > >  lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h        |  73 ++++++++++
> > >  lib/eal/include/rte_seqlock.h                 |   2 +
> > >  lib/eal/ppc/include/rte_spinlock.h            |   3 +
> > >  lib/eal/x86/include/rte_rwlock.h              |   4 +
> > >  lib/eal/x86/include/rte_spinlock.h            |   9 ++
> > >  lib/meson.build                               |   5 +
> > >  lib/vhost/iotlb.h                             |   4 +
> > >  lib/vhost/meson.build                         |   2 +
> > >  lib/vhost/vdpa.c                              |  20 +--
> > >  lib/vhost/vhost.c                             |  38 ++---
> > >  lib/vhost/vhost.h                             |  34 ++++-
> > >  lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c                      |   8 ++
> > >  lib/vhost/vhost_user.c                        | 131 ++++++++---------
> -
> > >  lib/vhost/virtio_net.c                        | 118 ++++++++++++----
> > >  21 files changed, 405 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.39.1
> >
> > Seems one compilation error reported? Not sure it's related or not.
> 
> We discovered recently that Intel CI filters out doc/ updates in patches
> (?!).

Oh, I remember you reported some CI issue to us but didn't realize this is
the one. Good to know it's resolved :)

Thanks,
Chenbo

> https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20220328121758.26632-1-
> david.marchand at redhat.com/T/#mb42fa6342204dd01c923339ec0b1587bc0b5ac0a
> 
> So yes, it is "related" to the series, but you can ignore Intel CI
> report because the reported issue is fixed since the v4 revision.
> 
> 
> Btw, thanks for the review Chenbo!
> 
> 
> --
> David Marchand