[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] cryptodev: free memzone when releasing cryptodev

[Anoob Joseph]

Hi,

Please see inline.

Thanks,
Anoob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Junxiao Shi
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:38 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [EXT] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] cryptodev: free memzone when releasing
> cryptodev
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> When a cryptodev is created in a primary process, rte_cryptodev_data_alloc
> reserves a memzone.
> However, this memzone was not released when the cryptodev is uninitialized.
> After that, new cryptodev cannot be created due to memzone name conflict.
> 
> This commit frees the memzone when a cryptodev is uninitialized, fixing this
> bug. This approach is chosen instead of keeping and reusing the old memzone,
> because the new cryptodev could belong to a different NUMA socket.
> 
> Also, rte_cryptodev_data pointer is now properly recorded in
> cryptodev_globals.data array.
> 
> Bugzilla ID: 105
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junxiao Shi <git at mail1.yoursunny.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c | 44
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> index 00c2cf4..666dfea 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> @@ -653,6 +653,31 @@ rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(uint8_t dev_id, struct
> rte_cryptodev_data **data,
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +static inline int
> +rte_cryptodev_data_free(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_data
> +**data) {
> +	char mz_name[RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> +	const struct rte_memzone *mz;
> +	int n;
> +
> +	/* generate memzone name */
> +	n = snprintf(mz_name, sizeof(mz_name), "rte_cryptodev_data_%u",
> dev_id);
> +	if (n >= (int)sizeof(mz_name))
> +		return -EINVAL;

[Anoob] Is the above check needed?

> +
> +	mz = rte_memzone_lookup(mz_name);
> +	if (mz == NULL)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

[Anoob] Is the return value correct? Shouldn't it be -EINVAL?

@Akhil, thoughts?

> +
> +	RTE_ASSERT(*data == mz->addr);
> +	*data = NULL;
> +
> +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> +		return rte_memzone_free(mz);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static uint8_t
>  rte_cryptodev_find_free_device_index(void)
>  {
> @@ -687,16 +712,16 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_allocate(const char *name, int
> socket_id)
>  	cryptodev = rte_cryptodev_pmd_get_dev(dev_id);
> 
>  	if (cryptodev->data == NULL) {
> -		struct rte_cryptodev_data *cryptodev_data =
> -				cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
> +		struct rte_cryptodev_data **cryptodev_data =
> +				&cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
> 
> -		int retval = rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(dev_id, &cryptodev_data,
> +		int retval = rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(dev_id, cryptodev_data,
>  				socket_id);
> 
> -		if (retval < 0 || cryptodev_data == NULL)
> +		if (retval < 0 || *cryptodev_data == NULL)
>  			return NULL;
> 
> -		cryptodev->data = cryptodev_data;
> +		cryptodev->data = *cryptodev_data;
> 
>  		strlcpy(cryptodev->data->name, name,
>  			RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> @@ -724,13 +749,20 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device(struct
> rte_cryptodev *cryptodev)
>  	if (cryptodev == NULL)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> 
> +	uint8_t dev_id = cryptodev->data->dev_id;
> +

[Anoob] Variables need to be declared at the start of the function.
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html

>  	/* Close device only if device operations have been set */
>  	if (cryptodev->dev_ops) {
> -		ret = rte_cryptodev_close(cryptodev->data->dev_id);
> +		ret = rte_cryptodev_close(dev_id);
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			return ret;
>  	}
> 
> +	struct rte_cryptodev_data **cryptodev_data =
> &cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];

[Anoob] Same comment as above

> +	ret = rte_cryptodev_data_free(dev_id, cryptodev_data);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;
> +
>  	cryptodev->attached = RTE_CRYPTODEV_DETACHED;
>  	cryptodev_globals.nb_devs--;
>  	return 0;
> --
> 2.7.4