From: bugzilla@dpdk.org
To: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [Bug 261] DPDK 18.11 bug on rte_hash_free_key_with_position
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:03:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-261-3@http.bugs.dpdk.org/> (raw)
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261
Bug ID: 261
Summary: DPDK 18.11 bug on rte_hash_free_key_with_position
Product: DPDK
Version: 18.11
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: CONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: Normal
Component: other
Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
Reporter: zhongdahulinfan@163.com
Target Milestone: ---
First let's see the definition of rte_hash_free_key_with_position in DPDK
18.11, as shown bellow:
int __rte_experimental
rte_hash_free_key_with_position(const struct rte_hash *h,
const int32_t position)
{
RETURN_IF_TRUE(((h == NULL) || (position == EMPTY_SLOT)), -EINVAL);
unsigned int lcore_id, n_slots;
struct lcore_cache *cached_free_slots;
const int32_t total_entries = h->num_buckets * RTE_HASH_BUCKET_ENTRIES;
/* Out of bounds */
if (position >= total_entries)
return -EINVAL;
if (h->use_local_cache) {
lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();
cached_free_slots = &h->local_free_slots[lcore_id];
/* Cache full, need to free it. */
if (cached_free_slots->len == LCORE_CACHE_SIZE) {
/* Need to enqueue the free slots in global ring. */
n_slots = rte_ring_mp_enqueue_burst(h->free_slots,
cached_free_slots->objs,
LCORE_CACHE_SIZE, NULL);
cached_free_slots->len -= n_slots;
}
/* Put index of new free slot in cache. */
cached_free_slots->objs[cached_free_slots->len] =
(void *)((uintptr_t)position);
cached_free_slots->len++;
} else {
rte_ring_sp_enqueue(h->free_slots,
(void *)((uintptr_t)position));
}
return 0;
}
There are two issues for this API.
First, the input parameter 'position' is the key index of the hash table, which
is returned by rte_hash_add_key_xxx or rte_hash_del_key_xxx. Take a glance look
of rte_hash_del_key_with_hash for example, we see that it returns key_idx - 1
if entry found and removed successfully. Hence rte_hash_free_key_with_position
is not correct while it enqueues position into free_slots directly. It must
increase position by one to get the right key index, before enqueues into
free_slots.
As comparision, remove_entry()enqueue key_idx directly, which is correct:
static inline void
remove_entry(const struct rte_hash *h, struct rte_hash_bucket *bkt, unsigned i)
{
unsigned lcore_id, n_slots;
struct lcore_cache *cached_free_slots;
if (h->use_local_cache) {
lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();
cached_free_slots = &h->local_free_slots[lcore_id];
/* Cache full, need to free it. */
if (cached_free_slots->len == LCORE_CACHE_SIZE) {
/* Need to enqueue the free slots in global ring. */
n_slots = rte_ring_mp_enqueue_burst(h->free_slots,
cached_free_slots->objs,
LCORE_CACHE_SIZE, NULL);
cached_free_slots->len -= n_slots;
}
/* Put index of new free slot in cache. */
cached_free_slots->objs[cached_free_slots->len] =
(void *)((uintptr_t)bkt->key_idx[i]);
cached_free_slots->len++;
} else {
rte_ring_sp_enqueue(h->free_slots,
(void *)((uintptr_t)bkt->key_idx[i]));
}
}
Second, computation of total_entries is not correct. This should be the total
number of key slots.The number of key slots is seen as rte_hash_create, say
(params->entries + (RTE_MAX_LCORE - 1) *(LCORE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) + 1) when
use_local_cache is true, else (params->entries + 1)
struct rte_hash *
rte_hash_create(const struct rte_hash_parameters *params)
{
...
if (params->extra_flag & RTE_HASH_EXTRA_FLAGS_MULTI_WRITER_ADD) {
use_local_cache = 1;
writer_takes_lock = 1;
}
...
/* Store all keys and leave the first entry as a dummy entry for
lookup_bulk */
if (use_local_cache)
/*
* Increase number of slots by total number of indices
* that can be stored in the lcore caches
* except for the first cache
*/
num_key_slots = params->entries + (RTE_MAX_LCORE - 1) *
(LCORE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) + 1;
else
num_key_slots = params->entries + 1;
...
/* Populate free slots ring. Entry zero is reserved for key misses. */
for (i = 1; i < num_key_slots; i++)
rte_ring_sp_enqueue(r, (void *)((uintptr_t) i));
...
}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
next reply other threads:[~2019-04-30 9:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-30 9:03 bugzilla [this message]
2019-05-01 3:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [Bug 261] DPDK 18.11 bug on rte_hash_free_key_with_position Dharmik Thakkar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-261-3@http.bugs.dpdk.org/ \
--to=bugzilla@dpdk.org \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.