From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> To: Yasufumi Ogawa <yasufum.o@gmail.com>, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Cc: "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: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:43:51 +0000 Message-ID: <a64bafdd-1836-f47d-cf41-e7d8ccb3bfab@intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <4144a7d7-f6af-8ebf-e572-d907e1975837@gmail.com> 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? 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 > -- Thanks, Anatoly
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 66+ 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 [this message] 2019-12-05 20:13 ` Yasufumi Ogawa 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
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=a64bafdd-1836-f47d-cf41-e7d8ccb3bfab@intel.com \ --to=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 \ --cc=yasufum.o@gmail.com \ /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
DPDK-dev Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev/0 dpdk-dev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 dpdk-dev dpdk-dev/ https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev \ dev@dpdk.org public-inbox-index dpdk-dev Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.dpdk.dev AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git