| Message ID | 20211111084751.26721-1-viacheslavo@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Delegated to: | Raslan Darawsheh |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net/mlx5: remove redundant "set used" | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ci/iol-testing | warning | apply patch failure |
| ci/intel-Testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/Intel-compilation | success | Compilation OK |
| ci/checkpatch | success | coding style OK |
Hi, Ferruh I've also inspected the mlx5 PMD code for RTE_SET_USED() for the similar issues related to the MLX5_ASSERT(). The patch http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211111084751.26721-1-viacheslavo@nvidia.com/ should refine the few found ones. I do not mind about squashing with "net/mlx5: fix mutex unlock in txpp cleanup" After getting this code in Upstream will care about the version for LTS. With best regards, Slava > -----Original Message----- > From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 10:48 > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; Matan > Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org > Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: remove redundant "set used" > > The patch just refines the code and replaces the pairs of MLX5_ASSERT() and > RTE_SET_USED() with equivalent claim_zero(). > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c | 30 ++++++++++-------------------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c > index 73626f0e8f..af77e91e4c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c > @@ -890,7 +890,6 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; > struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; > int err = 0; > - int ret; > > if (!priv->config.tx_pp) { > /* Packet pacing is not requested for the device. */ @@ - > 903,14 +902,14 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > return 0; > } > if (priv->config.tx_pp > 0) { > - ret = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup > - > (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, NULL); > - if (ret < 0) > + err = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup > + (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, > NULL); > + /* No flag registered means no service needed. */ > + if (err < 0) > return 0; > + err = 0; > } > - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > if (sh->txpp.refcnt) { > priv->txpp_en = 1; > ++sh->txpp.refcnt; > @@ -924,9 +923,7 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > rte_errno = -err; > } > } > - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > return err; > } > > @@ -944,28 +941,21 @@ mlx5_txpp_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { > struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; > struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; > - int ret; > > if (!priv->txpp_en) { > /* Packet pacing is already disabled for the device. */ > return; > } > priv->txpp_en = 0; > - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > MLX5_ASSERT(sh->txpp.refcnt); > if (!sh->txpp.refcnt || --sh->txpp.refcnt) { > - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > return; > } > /* No references any more, do actual destroy. */ > mlx5_txpp_destroy(sh); > - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > } > > /* > -- > 2.18.1
On 11/11/2021 8:59 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > Hi, Ferruh > > I've also inspected the mlx5 PMD code for RTE_SET_USED() for the similar > issues related to the MLX5_ASSERT(). > > The patch http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211111084751.26721-1-viacheslavo@nvidia.com/ > should refine the few found ones. > > I do not mind about squashing with "net/mlx5: fix mutex unlock in txpp cleanup" > After getting this code in Upstream will care about the version for LTS. > It will cause additional complexity for the LTS, since a small part of the below fix will be originated from Chengfeng's change. To help LTS, what do you think - First get your fix on top of current task - Have a new version from Chengfeng on top of latest head, with 'claim_zero' usage? So only your update need to be merged to LTS releases. > With best regards, > Slava > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> >> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 10:48 >> To: dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; Matan >> Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org >> Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: remove redundant "set used" >> >> The patch just refines the code and replaces the pairs of MLX5_ASSERT() and >> RTE_SET_USED() with equivalent claim_zero(). >> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >> >> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c | 30 ++++++++++-------------------- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c >> index 73626f0e8f..af77e91e4c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c >> @@ -890,7 +890,6 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) >> struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; >> struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; >> int err = 0; >> - int ret; >> >> if (!priv->config.tx_pp) { >> /* Packet pacing is not requested for the device. */ @@ - >> 903,14 +902,14 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) >> return 0; >> } >> if (priv->config.tx_pp > 0) { >> - ret = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup >> - >> (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, NULL); >> - if (ret < 0) >> + err = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup >> + (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, >> NULL); >> + /* No flag registered means no service needed. */ >> + if (err < 0) >> return 0; >> + err = 0; >> } >> - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); >> if (sh->txpp.refcnt) { >> priv->txpp_en = 1; >> ++sh->txpp.refcnt; >> @@ -924,9 +923,7 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) >> rte_errno = -err; >> } >> } >> - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); >> return err; >> } >> >> @@ -944,28 +941,21 @@ mlx5_txpp_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { >> struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; >> struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; >> - int ret; >> >> if (!priv->txpp_en) { >> /* Packet pacing is already disabled for the device. */ >> return; >> } >> priv->txpp_en = 0; >> - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); >> MLX5_ASSERT(sh->txpp.refcnt); >> if (!sh->txpp.refcnt || --sh->txpp.refcnt) { >> - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); >> return; >> } >> /* No references any more, do actual destroy. */ >> mlx5_txpp_destroy(sh); >> - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); >> } >> >> /* >> -- >> 2.18.1 >
Hi, Ferruh > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 14:08 > To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad > <matan@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org; Chengfeng Ye > <cyeaa@connect.ust.hk> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: remove redundant "set used" > > On 11/11/2021 8:59 AM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote: > > Hi, Ferruh > > > > I've also inspected the mlx5 PMD code for RTE_SET_USED() for the > > similar issues related to the MLX5_ASSERT(). > > > > The patch > > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211111084751.26721-1- > viac > > heslavo@nvidia.com/ > > should refine the few found ones. > > > > I do not mind about squashing with "net/mlx5: fix mutex unlock in txpp > cleanup" > > After getting this code in Upstream will care about the version for LTS. > > > > It will cause additional complexity for the LTS, since a small part of the below > fix will be originated from Chengfeng's change. To help LTS, what do you think > - First get your fix on top of current task > - Have a new version from Chengfeng on top of latest head, with 'claim_zero' > usage? Would be nice, I have no any objections. Chengfeng, could you please, squash (or write by yourself) my proposed updates and send the next version of your patch with "claim_zero()"? > So only your update need to be merged to LTS releases. Yes, agree, it is even better than my proposal. With best regards, Slava > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 10:48 > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; > >> Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org > >> Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: remove redundant "set used" > >> > >> The patch just refines the code and replaces the pairs of > >> MLX5_ASSERT() and > >> RTE_SET_USED() with equivalent claim_zero(). > >> > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c | 30 ++++++++++-------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c > >> b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c index 73626f0e8f..af77e91e4c 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c > >> @@ -890,7 +890,6 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > >> struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; > >> struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; > >> int err = 0; > >> - int ret; > >> > >> if (!priv->config.tx_pp) { > >> /* Packet pacing is not requested for the device. */ @@ - > >> 903,14 +902,14 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > >> return 0; > >> } > >> if (priv->config.tx_pp > 0) { > >> - ret = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup > >> - > >> (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, NULL); > >> - if (ret < 0) > >> + err = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup > >> + (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, > >> NULL); > >> + /* No flag registered means no service needed. */ > >> + if (err < 0) > >> return 0; > >> + err = 0; > >> } > >> - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > >> if (sh->txpp.refcnt) { > >> priv->txpp_en = 1; > >> ++sh->txpp.refcnt; > >> @@ -924,9 +923,7 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > >> rte_errno = -err; > >> } > >> } > >> - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > >> return err; > >> } > >> > >> @@ -944,28 +941,21 @@ mlx5_txpp_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { > >> struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; > >> struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; > >> - int ret; > >> > >> if (!priv->txpp_en) { > >> /* Packet pacing is already disabled for the device. */ > >> return; > >> } > >> priv->txpp_en = 0; > >> - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > >> MLX5_ASSERT(sh->txpp.refcnt); > >> if (!sh->txpp.refcnt || --sh->txpp.refcnt) { > >> - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > >> return; > >> } > >> /* No references any more, do actual destroy. */ > >> mlx5_txpp_destroy(sh); > >> - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); > >> - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); > >> - RTE_SET_USED(ret); > >> + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); > >> } > >> > >> /* > >> -- > >> 2.18.1 > >
No problem, I will send the new patch. But what about the commit message and title, should I use the previous one? net/mlx5: fix mutex unlock in txpp cleanup 获取 Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
From: YE Chengfeng <cyeaa@connect.ust.hk>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 18:08
To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5: remove redundant "set used"
No problem, I will send the new patch.
[SO] Thank you.
But what about the commit message and title, should I use the previous one?
net/mlx5: fix mutex unlock in txpp cleanup
[SO] Please, send as the next version (v6?) of your patch. Just squash my proposals
and keep your title (“net/mlx5: fix mutex unlock in txpp cleanup”) and commit message.
With best regards,
Slava
获取 Outlook for iOS<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef&data=04%7C01%7Cviacheslavo%40nvidia.com%7Ce021aa65a82246fea44808d9a52d64bb%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637722436716123715%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gLoebXXI%2BFE8l6sE0pmNxjvPNVk34vBxWTeVlTOmJJ0%3D&reserved=0>
Got it. 获取 Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
Hi, I send the v6 patch. Best regards, Chengfeng
diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c index 73626f0e8f..af77e91e4c 100644 --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c @@ -890,7 +890,6 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; int err = 0; - int ret; if (!priv->config.tx_pp) { /* Packet pacing is not requested for the device. */ @@ -903,14 +902,14 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) return 0; } if (priv->config.tx_pp > 0) { - ret = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup - (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, NULL); - if (ret < 0) + err = rte_mbuf_dynflag_lookup + (RTE_MBUF_DYNFLAG_TX_TIMESTAMP_NAME, NULL); + /* No flag registered means no service needed. */ + if (err < 0) return 0; + err = 0; } - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); - RTE_SET_USED(ret); + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); if (sh->txpp.refcnt) { priv->txpp_en = 1; ++sh->txpp.refcnt; @@ -924,9 +923,7 @@ mlx5_txpp_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) rte_errno = -err; } } - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); - RTE_SET_USED(ret); + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); return err; } @@ -944,28 +941,21 @@ mlx5_txpp_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { struct mlx5_priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; struct mlx5_dev_ctx_shared *sh = priv->sh; - int ret; if (!priv->txpp_en) { /* Packet pacing is already disabled for the device. */ return; } priv->txpp_en = 0; - ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex); - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); - RTE_SET_USED(ret); + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_lock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); MLX5_ASSERT(sh->txpp.refcnt); if (!sh->txpp.refcnt || --sh->txpp.refcnt) { - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); - RTE_SET_USED(ret); + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); return; } /* No references any more, do actual destroy. */ mlx5_txpp_destroy(sh); - ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex); - MLX5_ASSERT(!ret); - RTE_SET_USED(ret); + claim_zero(pthread_mutex_unlock(&sh->txpp.mutex)); } /*
The patch just refines the code and replaces the pairs of MLX5_ASSERT() and RTE_SET_USED() with equivalent claim_zero(). Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> --- drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_txpp.c | 30 ++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)