[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: make flow API primary/secondary process safe

[Suanming Mou]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:07 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>;
> Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
> Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: make flow API primary/secondary
> process safe
> 
> On 3/16/2021 11:48 PM, Suanming Mou wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:27 AM
> >> To: dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Suanming Mou
> >> <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: make flow API primary/secondary process
> >> safe
> >>
> >> Posix mutex are not by default safe for protecting for usage from
> >> multiple processes. The flow ops mutex could be used by both primary
> >> and secondary processes.
> >
> > Process safe is something more widely scope. I assume it should be another
> feature but not a bugfix for thread-safe?
> > And the fag RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE we have added is just
> thread safe.
> >
> 
> Hi Suanming,
> 
> I think 'RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE' flag and what this patch
> address are different issues.
> 
> 'RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE' is to add/remove synchronization
> support for flow APIs, that is for thread safety as flag name suggests.
> 
> This patch is to solve the problem for multi process, where commit log describes
> as posix mutex is not safe for multiple process.

So for PMDs which not set the RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE capability bit, they will have the process level protection in multi-process.
For PMDs which set the RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE capability bit, this change does not help with these PMDs. If the PMD with RTE_ETH_DEV_FLOW_OPS_THREAD_SAFE capability bit  internally does not support multi-process, they may still suffer crash etc. (If I understand correctly, mlx PMD level now should support multi-process, but better to have the confirmation from maintainers with much deeper level).
I assume this patch solves the posix mutex for multi-process only, hard to say the flow API primary/secondary process safe after that patch.

> 
> 
> Stephen,
> Are you aware of any downside setting 'PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED' attribute
> to the
> mutex? Any possible performance implications?
> 
> Ori,
> Since mlx is heavily using the flow API, is it possible to test this patch? If
> there is no negative impact, I think we can get this patch, what do you think?
> 
> >>
> >> Bugzilla ID: 662
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> >> Fixes: 80d1a9aff7f6 ("ethdev: make flow API thread safe")
> >> Cc: suanmingm at nvidia.com
> >> ---
> >>   lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 6 +++++-
> >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> index
> >> 6f514c388b4e..d1024df408a5 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >> @@ -470,6 +470,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_allocate(const char *name)  {
> >>   	uint16_t port_id;
> >>   	struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev = NULL;
> >> +	pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> >>   	size_t name_len;
> >>
> >>   	name_len = strnlen(name, RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN); @@ -506,7
> >> +507,10 @@ rte_eth_dev_allocate(const char *name)
> >>   	strlcpy(eth_dev->data->name, name, sizeof(eth_dev->data->name));
> >>   	eth_dev->data->port_id = port_id;
> >>   	eth_dev->data->mtu = RTE_ETHER_MTU;
> >> -	pthread_mutex_init(&eth_dev->data->flow_ops_mutex, NULL);
> >> +
> >> +	pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> >> +	pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
> >>
> >> +	pthread_mutex_init(&eth_dev->data->flow_ops_mutex, &attr);
> >>
> >>   unlock:
> >>   	rte_spinlock_unlock(&eth_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
> >> --
> >> 2.30.2
> >