From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBC2C433FF for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEA5217F4 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:23:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BAEA5217F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7EA1BE02; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:23:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f65.google.com (mail-vs1-f65.google.com [209.85.217.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB451BDF1 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:23:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f65.google.com with SMTP id y16so62732310vsc.3 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 04:23:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sYIUjdw6ZKWTVh3l9u2lxaMr89sx6C/fHGlT8h/zR1Q=; b=BnOKOwMFohCYUWzuI5D1deXYs1PtWRBildvWdXgmXP+/ozwQfcvRZ/q9ntM6fKaI7U sbtL6dIk06NqIlJ2cX121wWid0rn8ikvOtM4Fkm7AEh+uVjH3tDjbVawCxRKCHVJTilj De/ZO9zB0yNw2i+AQufp0B/hY4iDFyvF/JnKPDkLYgKprGIotgjUfU2ruEMshpJzfMlw vQOS4GlcQ6Gs90wLG4yqISFU3WGeBVpEz22MZmCPvIo1PCUfIvI7SmbWAMlXPUC1KHIW 4npTeiLACp+4bJuOamvM/rYeRoT03FTUxZYgtBjxeiZi3pIxZHvrquhm6lgRSFbyLZos hrcg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUmId2anS8tms4iyp+79vw1CqyLTJDAwz3UjTWFvoWPPDJkghCe IeX5ZNqLKl9mR/y5BeClZo+7R2ah+egKcMoZolHLLA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZznqWbnZg2sJ+tOonMm9cmPR4+m1P9NiL/WNf7gQnwB94FAgBZpMMD2gYdM0ncgHM4U9M7d7sa4xfgU79Uho= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f998:: with SMTP id b24mr9412650vsq.180.1565263395727; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 04:23:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1564662465-2925-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@redhat.com> <2288744.0SrN437FYt@xps> <2597822.7cOrOIsT96@xps> In-Reply-To: <2597822.7cOrOIsT96@xps> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 13:23:04 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dpdk stable , dev , Aaron Conole , Michael Santana Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] test/eal: do not scan PCI devices for memory tests X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list 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 Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:20 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 03/08/2019 11:51, David Marchand: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:57 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > 01/08/2019 14:27, David Marchand: > > > > The memory tests currently check that, for normal mode (not legacy mode), > > > > there is no memory left behind when exiting. > > > > > > I think this is the real bug: > > > we are checking a behaviour that we cannot achieve currently. > > > > > > > The problem is that if a ethdev port is allocated when scanning pci > > > > devices (even if the driver probe fails like when you have a virtio > > > > management interface attached to the kernel), on exit, dpdk won't free > > > > the associated memory since ethdev never frees the ethdev memzone. > > > > > > As you said in this thread, we could think about how to free it properly > > > in a future release. > > > For 19.08, I would suggest to disable the test with a comment > > > explaining the reason. > > > > For 19.08, as long as we test shared builds in the CI, then it just > > "works", because the net drivers are not loaded. > > No net driver, no ethdev leak ;-) > > So we keep the bug with the unit test not running with a static build > for 19.08, and we'll try to fix it in 19.11? Seems the more pragmatic yes. -- David Marchand