From: Yasufumi Ogawa <yasufum.o@gmail.com>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Yasufumi Ogawa <ogawa.yasufumi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/1] fbarray: fix duplicated fbarray file in secondary
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 05:13:52 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9fa34e1d-8140-63a7-f25d-8e02415b2840@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a64bafdd-1836-f47d-cf41-e7d8ccb3bfab@intel.com>
Hi Anatoly,
On 2019/12/02 19:43, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 29-Nov-19 5:44 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
>> Hi Anatoly,
>>
>> On 2019/11/27 19:26, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>> On 26-Nov-19 7:40 PM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for slow reply.
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/11/14 21:27, David Marchand wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM Yasufumi Ogawa
>>>>> <yasufum.o@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019/11/14 2:01, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13-Nov-19 9:43 PM, yasufum.o@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Yasufumi Ogawa <ogawa.yasufumi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In secondary_msl_create_walk(), it creates a file for fbarrays
>>>>>>>> with its
>>>>>>>> PID for reserving unique name among secondary processes.
>>>>>>>> However, it
>>>>>>>> does not work if several secondaries run as app containers
>>>>>>>> because each
>>>>>>>> of containerized secondary has PID 1, and failed to reserve
>>>>>>>> unique name
>>>>>>>> other than first one. To reserve unique name in each of
>>>>>>>> containers, use
>>>>>>>> hostname in addition to PID.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yasufumi Ogawa <yasufum.o@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c
>>>>>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c
>>>>>>>> index af6d0d023..11de6d4d6 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -1365,6 +1365,12 @@ secondary_msl_create_walk(const struct
>>>>>>>> rte_memseg_list *msl,
>>>>>>>> struct rte_memseg_list *primary_msl, *local_msl;
>>>>>>>> char name[PATH_MAX];
>>>>>>>> int msl_idx, ret;
>>>>>>>> + char hostname[HOST_NAME_MAX+1] = { 0 };
>>>>>>>> + /* filename of secondary's fbarray is defined such as
>>>>>>>> + * "fbarray_memseg-1048576k-0-0_PID_HOSTNAME" and length of
>>>>>>>> PID
>>>>>>>> + * can be 7 digits maximumly.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> + int fbarray_sec_name_len = 32 + 7 + 1 + HOST_NAME_MAX + 1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does 32 stand for? Maybe #define both 32 and 7 values?
>>>>>> Hi Anatoly,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your comments! If my understanding is correct, the
>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>> "fbarray_memseg-1048576k-0-0_" is 28 digits and it could be larger if
>>>>>> using the size of hugepage or the number of NUMA nodes are larger
>>>>>> possibly. However, I think 32 digits is still enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Maybe #define both 32 and 7 values?
>>>>>> Yes. I think it should be better to use #define if this values are
>>>>>> referred several times.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can truncate to RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN in all cases.
>>>>> And iiuc, rte_fbarray_init will refuse any longer name anyway.
>>>> Could I confirm the issue? I've understood that it is failed to
>>>> validate the name of fbarray in fully_validate() at
>>>> "lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c:697".
>>>>
>>>> static int
>>>> fully_validate(const char *name, unsigned int elt_sz, unsigned int len)
>>>> {
>>>> if (name == NULL || elt_sz == 0 || len == 0 || len >
>>>> INT_MAX) {
>>>> rte_errno = EINVAL;
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (strnlen(name, RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN) ==
>>>> RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN) {
>>>> rte_errno = ENAMETOOLONG;
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I should overwrite the definition of RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as
>>>> previous patch in this case, and it causes an ABI breakage, right?
>>>> If so, I would like to make the change and give up to update stable
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yasufumi
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems we're getting into bikeshedding...
>>>
>>> We can do this without ABI breakage. You could have just used
>>> RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as max fbarray name length for
>>> fbarray_sec_name_len (i.e. that would include hostname + pid +
>>> whatever else there is). The name, as David has pointed out, would be
>>> truncated to RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN anyway (or, more precisely, it will
>>> be refused if it's longer than that), so this is the most you can
>>> have - so you can just use that as the maximum.
>> I sent v8 patch to change the size of RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN itself to
>> be allowed the size of secondary's fbarray over 64 bytes. I appreciate
>> if you agree that.
>>
>
> Why not just limit the name to RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN instead of changing
> the definition of RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN?
Could I confirm my understanding? I understand that RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN
is 64 currently and it is not enough for secondary in a container if
hostname is added to the name of secondary's fbarray.
Regards,
Yasufumi
>
> One the other hand, technically, fbarray API is experimental. The only
> structure that uses rte_fbarray is rte_memseg_list, but API's using
> either rte_fbarray or rte_memseg_list are either internal (memory/VFIO
> subsystem), or are marked as experimental (walk functions).
>
> So i *think* we're actually OK with changing the length of
> RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as far as ABI policy goes: nothing in the stable
> ABI gets affected. David, thoughts?
>
> (i think it's probably time to make experimental memory/fbarray stuff
> stable, but that's a different conversation...)
>
>> Thanks,
>> Yasufumi
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-05 20:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-16 1:59 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] fbarray: get fbarrays from containerized secondary ogawa.yasufumi
2019-04-16 3:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/1] Get " ogawa.yasufumi
2019-04-16 3:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] fbarray: get " ogawa.yasufumi
2019-07-04 20:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-07-05 8:53 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-09 10:22 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-07-09 10:24 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-09 10:26 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-11 9:37 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-07-11 9:43 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-11 10:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/1] " yasufum.o
2019-07-11 10:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/1] " yasufum.o
2019-07-11 10:53 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-11 11:57 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-07-11 13:14 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-12 2:22 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-07-22 1:06 ` Ogawa Yasufumi
2019-07-22 9:33 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-22 9:25 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-24 8:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/1] " yasufum.o
2019-07-24 8:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/1] " yasufum.o
2019-07-24 9:59 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-30 8:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Thomas Monjalon
2019-07-30 9:18 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-07-31 5:48 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-10-11 9:36 ` [dpdk-dev] " David Marchand
2019-10-25 15:36 ` David Marchand
2019-10-25 19:54 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-10-26 16:15 ` David Marchand
2019-10-26 18:11 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-10-28 8:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/1] fbarray: fix duplicated fbarray file in secondary yasufum.o
2019-10-28 8:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] " yasufum.o
2019-10-29 12:03 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-10-30 13:42 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-10-30 19:00 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-10-31 10:03 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-10-31 10:32 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-01 9:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/1] " yasufum.o
2019-11-01 9:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/1] " yasufum.o
2019-11-01 12:01 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-04 10:20 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-11-05 10:13 ` David Marchand
2019-11-05 11:31 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-11-05 11:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-06 10:37 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-11-08 3:19 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-11-13 21:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/1] " yasufum.o
2019-11-13 21:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/1] " yasufum.o
2019-11-14 10:01 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-11-14 11:42 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-11-14 12:27 ` David Marchand
2019-11-26 19:40 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-11-27 10:26 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-11-29 5:44 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-12-02 10:43 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-12-05 20:13 ` Yasufumi Ogawa [this message]
2019-11-14 12:55 ` David Marchand
2019-11-14 17:32 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-11-27 8:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/1] " Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-11-27 8:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/1] " Yasufumi Ogawa
2019-12-06 10:44 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-12-06 13:18 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2020-02-14 7:46 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2020-02-14 15:08 ` David Marchand
2020-02-14 15:29 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-17 12:54 ` Yasufumi Ogawa
2023-06-13 16:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] fbarray: get fbarrays from containerized secondary Stephen Hemminger
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=9fa34e1d-8140-63a7-f25d-8e02415b2840@gmail.com \
--to=yasufum.o@gmail.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=ogawa.yasufumi@lab.ntt.co.jp \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).