From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples/bond: wait for slaves to become active Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:14:45 -0500 Message-ID: <8d9cd764-dbdf-dde6-62cd-8bb98f27176c@gmail.com> References: <1542197949-15992-1-git-send-email-radu.nicolau@intel.com> <2e452920-4514-6395-27e5-f7457de01797@intel.com> <9425dd1c-877a-0bee-72b8-6aae9617286f@intel.com> <6839bca3-a8f9-b3c9-9d58-66296d00e75a@gmail.com> <0c2a1ddf-726a-c3ef-e786-97a04aebe897@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: declan.doherty@intel.com, chas3@att.com To: Radu Nicolau , Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com (mail-qt1-f195.google.com [209.85.160.195]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4E81B104 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:14:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id i7so26434993qtj.10 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:14:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0c2a1ddf-726a-c3ef-e786-97a04aebe897@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US 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 11/28/18 11:04 AM, Radu Nicolau wrote: > > > On 11/28/2018 2:28 PM, Chas Williams wrote: >> >> >> On 11/28/2018 08:48 AM, Radu Nicolau wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> >>> On 11/28/2018 11:08 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2018 12:19 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote: >>>>> Do not start the packet processing threads until all configured >>>>> slaves become active. >>>> Hi Radu, >>>> >>>> What happens if packet processing threads started before all slaves >>>> active? Exit >>>> app, error, crash? >>>> >>>> So can we say this patch is fixing packet forwarding? (fix in title?) >>>> >>>> And do we know what break it, why this was not required previously >>>> but required >>>> now? (Fixes line ?) >>>  From what I see, the problem was always there: bond_ethdev_rx_burst >>> will cycle through slaves, but if called more times with no active >>> slaves the active slave index will point out of bounds, resulting in >>> a segfault. >>> While this may require a better fix, this patch is an improvement >>> even if that fix comes - the configured slaves needs to be checked, >>> and if none became active there is no point going further. >>> >>> in bond_ethdev_rx_burst: >>> >>> slave_count = internals->active_slave_count; >>> ... >>>      if (++internals->active_slave == slave_count) >>>          internals->active_slave = 0; >>> slave_count is zero, the if() will never be true and active_slave >>> will be continuously incremented. It was not written to work with no >>> active slaves. >> >> Just create another patch for the rx routines.  If the active_slave_count >> is 0, there's nothing to do really.  It should just return and not >> bother with any of the other work. > I can do that, and it will be the better fix I mentioned. > But I still think this patch makes the sample app better, at least it > gives a hint to someone looking to develop its own app to check on the > slaves' status before proceeding to rx. Yes, I agree this patch is still valid. If you are writing some sort of test, you should wait until the bonding interface and slaves are ready before you start sending traffic. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> ferruh >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau >>>>> --- >>>>>   examples/bond/main.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/examples/bond/main.c b/examples/bond/main.c >>>>> index b282e68..6623cae 100644 >>>>> --- a/examples/bond/main.c >>>>> +++ b/examples/bond/main.c >>>>> @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ bond_port_init(struct rte_mempool *mbuf_pool) >>>>>       struct rte_eth_rxconf rxq_conf; >>>>>       struct rte_eth_txconf txq_conf; >>>>>       struct rte_eth_conf local_port_conf = port_conf; >>>>> +    uint16_t wait_counter = 20; >>>>>       retval = rte_eth_bond_create("net_bonding0", BONDING_MODE_ALB, >>>>>               0 /*SOCKET_ID_ANY*/); >>>>> @@ -274,6 +275,20 @@ bond_port_init(struct rte_mempool *mbuf_pool) >>>>>       if (retval < 0) >>>>>           rte_exit(retval, "Start port %d failed (res=%d)", >>>>> BOND_PORT, retval); >>>>> +    printf("Waiting for slaves to become active..."); >>>>> +    while (wait_counter) { >>>>> +        uint16_t act_slaves[16] = {0}; >>>>> +        if (rte_eth_bond_active_slaves_get(BOND_PORT, act_slaves, >>>>> 16) == >>>>> +                slaves_count) { >>>>> +            printf("\n"); >>>>> +            break; >>>>> +        } >>>>> +        sleep(1); >>>>> +        printf("..."); >>>>> +        if (--wait_counter == 0) >>>>> +            rte_exit(-1, "\nFailed to activate slaves\n"); >>>>> +    } >>>>> + >>>>>       rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(BOND_PORT); >>>>>       struct ether_addr addr; >>>>> >>> >