From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] IGB_UIO: PCI Resources Management Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 02:04:49 +0000 Message-ID: <7605618f-dc86-3060-473e-aff5545cac72@intel.com> References: <3355891.l3I590SjcV@polaris> <608e7dfd-5226-3e30-f43b-0fbe01aee16a@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Gregory Etelson , dev , "users@dpdk.org" To: "Tan, Jianfeng" , Alejandro Lucero Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 1/13/2017 1:51 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: users [mailto:users-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit >> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 8:22 PM >> To: Alejandro Lucero >> Cc: Gregory Etelson; dev; users@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-dev] IGB_UIO: PCI Resources Management >> >> On 1/12/2017 12:12 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ferruh Yigit >> > wrote: >>> >>> On 12/9/2016 8:54 AM, Gregory Etelson wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > IGB_UIO driver does not close port PCI activities after DPDK process >> exits. >>> > DPDK API provides rte_eth_dev_close() to manage port PCI, >>> > but it can be skipped if process receives SIGKILL signal >>> >>> I guess I understand the problem. >>> >>> >>> This is a known problem, but it is not just a UIO problem, and this >>> patch does not solve it, maybe it just solves part of it. >>> >>> In fact, a DPDK program crashing could imply the NIC DMAing after that >>> and after that memory was assigned to another program. >> >> Yes. >> Can there be a way to stop NIC DMA, (or prevent it access to mem >> anymore) when app crashes? >> I think that is what this patch is looking for. > > If I understand it correctly, you are looking for this patch? > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17495/ > That is good, thanks Jianfeng, I will check it. btw, patch's current state is rejected, which is by mistake, it seems I confused it with "iomem and ioport mapping" patch, sorry about it, I will update its status immediately.