[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: make flow API primary/secondary process safe
fengchengwen
fengchengwen at huawei.com
Fri Apr 16 03:41:22 CEST 2021
We make a test on this patch, test result show that it works fine. Below is the detail:
HW: Kunpeng920 ARM Platform which is ARMv8
NIC: Kunpeng920 SOC NIC
OS: Linux centos-C3 5.12.0-rc4+
DPDK: 21.02
DRV: hns3
Start three process:
./testpmd -w 0000:bd:00.0 -l 67-68 --proc-type=auto -- -i --num-procs=3 --proc-id=0
./testpmd -w 0000:bd:00.0 -l 67-68 --proc-type=auto -- -i --num-procs=3 --proc-id=1
./testpmd -w 0000:bd:00.0 -l 69-70 --proc-type=auto -- -i --num-procs=3 --proc-id=2
Every process execute following steps:
1. create one fdir rule, eg: flow create 0 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 src is 192.168.110.26 / end actions queue index 0 / end
note: each process has different rules, so they will create success
2. create one rss rule
note: all process create the same rules, so they may create fail
3. flush all rules
4. goto step 1, loop again
note: there are +10ms delay after step 1/2/3 because we run VBS script to inject command on windows.
The test lasted 12 hours, and there are no process crashes.
On 2021/4/14 21:06, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> 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(ð_dev->data->flow_ops_mutex, NULL);
>>> +
>>> + pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
>>> + pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
>>>
>>> + pthread_mutex_init(ð_dev->data->flow_ops_mutex, &attr);
>>>
>>> unlock:
>>> rte_spinlock_unlock(ð_dev_shared_data->ownership_lock);
>>> --
>>> 2.30.2
>>
>
>
> .
More information about the dev
mailing list