[v2,1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion failure
Checks
Commit Message
Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry
ring base addresses which fixes the static assertion failure,
as the size of dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS
which varies based on the build config.
Bugzilla ID: 940
Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry notification")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Reported-by: Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>
Reported-by: Yu Jiang <yux.jiang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
---
V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
---
drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.h | 2 +-
drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_dev.c | 11 ++++++++++-
drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_priv.h | 2 +-
drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h | 7 +++++++
5 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
Comments
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:18 PM Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com> wrote:
>
> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry
> ring base addresses which fixes the static assertion failure,
> as the size of dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS
> which varies based on the build config.
>
> Bugzilla ID: 940
> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry notification")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Reported-by: Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Yu Jiang <yux.jiang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
Applied to dpdk-next-net-mrvl/for-next-net. Thanks
> ---
> V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
> ---
> drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
> drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.h | 2 +-
> drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_dev.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_priv.h | 2 +-
> drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h | 7 +++++++
> 5 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.c b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.c
> index 11ed157703..826c6e99c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.c
> +++ b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.c
> @@ -330,12 +330,13 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_init(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
> struct dev *dev = &nix->dev;
> struct msix_offset_rsp *rsp;
> struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev;
> + size_t sa_sz, ring_sz;
> uint16_t sso_pffunc;
> uint8_t eng_grpmask;
> uint64_t blkaddr, i;
> + uint64_t *ring_base;
> uint16_t nb_lf;
> void *sa_base;
> - size_t sa_sz;
> int j, rc;
> void *sa;
>
> @@ -468,16 +469,16 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_init(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
> /* Allocate memory to be used as a ring buffer to poll for
> * soft expiry event from ucode
> */
> + ring_sz = (ROC_IPSEC_ERR_RING_MAX_ENTRY + 1) * sizeof(uint64_t);
> + ring_base = inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring;
> for (i = 0; i < nix->outb_se_ring_cnt; i++) {
> - inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i] =
> - plt_zmalloc((ROC_IPSEC_ERR_RING_MAX_ENTRY + 1) *
> - sizeof(uint64_t),
> - 0);
> - if (!inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[i]) {
> + ring_base[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i] =
> + PLT_U64_CAST(plt_zmalloc(ring_sz, 0));
> + if (!ring_base[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i]) {
> plt_err("Couldn't allocate memory for soft exp ring");
> while (i--)
> - plt_free(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring
> - [nix->outb_se_ring_base + i]);
> + plt_free(PLT_PTR_CAST(
> + ring_base[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i]));
> rc = -ENOMEM;
> goto lf_fini;
> }
> @@ -504,6 +505,7 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_fini(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
> struct idev_cfg *idev = idev_get_cfg();
> struct dev *dev = &nix->dev;
> struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev;
> + uint64_t *ring_base;
> int i, rc, ret = 0;
>
> if (!nix->inl_outb_ena)
> @@ -537,10 +539,11 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_fini(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
>
> if (idev && idev->nix_inl_dev) {
> inl_dev = idev->nix_inl_dev;
> + ring_base = inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring;
>
> for (i = 0; i < ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS; i++) {
> - if (inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[i])
> - plt_free(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[i]);
> + if (ring_base[i])
> + plt_free(PLT_PTR_CAST(ring_base[i]));
> }
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.h b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.h
> index 1dc58f2da2..2c2a4d76f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.h
> +++ b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl.h
> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ struct roc_nix_inl_dev {
> bool set_soft_exp_poll;
> /* End of input parameters */
>
> -#define ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ (2304)
> +#define ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ (1280)
> uint8_t reserved[ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ] __plt_cache_aligned;
> } __plt_cache_aligned;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_dev.c b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_dev.c
> index 1cfcdba3f2..5a032aab52 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_dev.c
> @@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ inl_outb_soft_exp_poll(struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev, uint32_t ring_idx)
> uint32_t port_id;
>
> port_id = ring_idx / ROC_NIX_SOFT_EXP_PER_PORT_MAX_RINGS;
> - ring_base = inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[ring_idx];
> + ring_base = PLT_PTR_CAST(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[ring_idx]);
> if (!ring_base) {
> plt_err("Invalid soft exp ring base");
> return;
> @@ -751,6 +751,14 @@ nix_inl_outb_poll_thread_setup(struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev)
>
> inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap_mem = mem;
> inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap = bmap;
> + inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring = plt_zmalloc(
> + ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS * sizeof(uint64_t), 0);
> + if (!inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring) {
> + plt_err("soft expiry ring pointer array alloc failed");
> + plt_free(mem);
> + rc = -ENOMEM;
> + goto exit;
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS; i++)
> plt_bitmap_clear(inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap, i);
> @@ -896,6 +904,7 @@ roc_nix_inl_dev_fini(struct roc_nix_inl_dev *roc_inl_dev)
> pthread_join(inl_dev->soft_exp_poll_thread, NULL);
> plt_bitmap_free(inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap);
> plt_free(inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap_mem);
> + plt_free(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring);
> }
>
> /* Flush Inbound CTX cache entries */
> diff --git a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_priv.h b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_priv.h
> index da6d6e9b03..0fa5e090d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_priv.h
> +++ b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_nix_inl_priv.h
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ struct nix_inl_dev {
> /* OUTB soft expiry poll thread */
> pthread_t soft_exp_poll_thread;
> uint32_t soft_exp_poll_freq;
> - void *sa_soft_exp_ring[ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS];
> + uint64_t *sa_soft_exp_ring;
>
> /* Soft expiry ring bitmap */
> struct plt_bitmap *soft_exp_ring_bmap;
> diff --git a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h
> index fa285446bd..28004b1743 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h
> +++ b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h
> @@ -63,6 +63,13 @@
> #ifndef PLT_ETHER_ADDR_LEN
> #define PLT_ETHER_ADDR_LEN RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN
> #endif
> +
> +/* Cast to specific datatypes */
> +#define PLT_PTR_CAST(val) ((void *)(val))
> +#define PLT_U64_CAST(val) ((uint64_t)(val))
> +#define PLT_U32_CAST(val) ((uint32_t)(val))
> +#define PLT_U16_CAST(val) ((uint16_t)(val))
> +
> /** Divide ceil */
> #define PLT_DIV_CEIL(x, y) \
> ({ \
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 9:47 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: jerinj@marvell.com; vattunuru@marvell.com; ndabilpuram@marvell.com;
> Jiang, YuX <yux.jiang@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org; Ling, WeiX
> <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion failure
>
> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry ring base addresses
> which fixes the static assertion failure, as the size of dynamic allocation
> depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS which varies based on the build config.
>
> Bugzilla ID: 940
> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry notification")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Reported-by: Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Yu Jiang <yux.jiang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> ---
Tested-by: Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>
On 3/2/2022 1:46 PM, Vamsi Attunuru wrote:
> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry
> ring base addresses which fixes the static assertion failure,
> as the size of dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS
> which varies based on the build config.
>
Hi Vamsi,
"fix static assertion failure" is not enough descriptive.
assertions already added to verify assumptions, and in this case
it seems it failed, but what was actually wrong?
Is it that allocated memory size for ring wrong? (this is what I got
from commit log but I am not sure)
Can you please describe what actually was wrong and fixed now?
> Bugzilla ID: 940
> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry notification")
> Cc:stable@dpdk.org
>
> Reported-by: Wei Ling<weix.ling@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Yu Jiang<yux.jiang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru<vattunuru@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi<syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> ---
> V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
> ---
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:52 PM
> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion failure
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 3/2/2022 1:46 PM, Vamsi Attunuru wrote:
> > Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry ring base
> > addresses which fixes the static assertion failure, as the size of
> > dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS which varies based on
> > the build config.
> >
>
> Hi Vamsi,
>
> "fix static assertion failure" is not enough descriptive.
> assertions already added to verify assumptions, and in this case it seems it
> failed, but what was actually wrong?
>
> Is it that allocated memory size for ring wrong? (this is what I got from
> commit log but I am not sure)
>
> Can you please describe what actually was wrong and fixed now?
>
Hi Ferruh,
Earlier sa_soft_exp_ring struct member was an array of pointers and it's size is linked to num RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,
and the whole struct size is confined and protected by size assertion. It resulted in build failure with -Dmax_ethports=1024
option and assertion caught that failure. V2 fixes the issues by allocating the required memory dynamically instead
of using array of pointers.
> > Bugzilla ID: 940
> > Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry
> > notification") Cc:stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Reported-by: Wei Ling<weix.ling@intel.com>
> > Reported-by: Yu Jiang<yux.jiang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru<vattunuru@marvell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi<syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> > ---
> > V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
> > ---
On 3/4/2022 10:20 AM, Vamsi Krishna Attunuru wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:52 PM
>> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
>> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
>> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
>> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion failure
>>
>> External Email
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On 3/2/2022 1:46 PM, Vamsi Attunuru wrote:
>>> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry ring base
>>> addresses which fixes the static assertion failure, as the size of
>>> dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS which varies based on
>>> the build config.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vamsi,
>>
>> "fix static assertion failure" is not enough descriptive.
>> assertions already added to verify assumptions, and in this case it seems it
>> failed, but what was actually wrong?
>>
>> Is it that allocated memory size for ring wrong? (this is what I got from
>> commit log but I am not sure)
>>
>> Can you please describe what actually was wrong and fixed now?
>>
> Hi Ferruh,
>
> Earlier sa_soft_exp_ring struct member was an array of pointers and it's size is linked to num RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,
> and the whole struct size is confined and protected by size assertion. It resulted in build failure with -Dmax_ethports=1024
> option and assertion caught that failure. V2 fixes the issues by allocating the required memory dynamically instead
> of using array of pointers.
>
Thanks Vamsi for details,
I was expecting a new version of patch with updated commit log,
but to make patch for -rc3 I will update it in next-net according
above information
>>> Bugzilla ID: 940
>>> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry
>>> notification") Cc:stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Wei Ling<weix.ling@intel.com>
>>> Reported-by: Yu Jiang<yux.jiang@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru<vattunuru@marvell.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi<syalavarthi@marvell.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
>>> ---
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 4:46 PM
> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion
> failure
>
> On 3/4/2022 10:20 AM, Vamsi Krishna Attunuru wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:52 PM
> >> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> >> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
> >> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
> >> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion
> >> failure
> >>
> >> External Email
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> - On 3/2/2022 1:46 PM, Vamsi Attunuru wrote:
> >>> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry ring base
> >>> addresses which fixes the static assertion failure, as the size of
> >>> dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS which varies based
> on
> >>> the build config.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Vamsi,
> >>
> >> "fix static assertion failure" is not enough descriptive.
> >> assertions already added to verify assumptions, and in this case it
> >> seems it failed, but what was actually wrong?
> >>
> >> Is it that allocated memory size for ring wrong? (this is what I got
> >> from commit log but I am not sure)
> >>
> >> Can you please describe what actually was wrong and fixed now?
> >>
> > Hi Ferruh,
> >
> > Earlier sa_soft_exp_ring struct member was an array of pointers and
> > it's size is linked to num RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS, and the whole struct size
> > is confined and protected by size assertion. It resulted in build failure with -
> Dmax_ethports=1024 option and assertion caught that failure. V2 fixes the
> issues by allocating the required memory dynamically instead
> > of using array of pointers.
> >
>
> Thanks Vamsi for details,
>
> I was expecting a new version of patch with updated commit log, but to
> make patch for -rc3 I will update it in next-net according above information
Sure, thanks Ferruh.
>
> >>> Bugzilla ID: 940
> >>> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry
> >>> notification") Cc:stable@dpdk.org
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Wei Ling<weix.ling@intel.com>
> >>> Reported-by: Yu Jiang<yux.jiang@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru<vattunuru@marvell.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi<syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
> >>> ---
> >
On 3/4/2022 10:20 AM, Vamsi Krishna Attunuru wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:52 PM
>> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
>> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
>> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
>> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion failure
>>
>> External Email
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On 3/2/2022 1:46 PM, Vamsi Attunuru wrote:
>>> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry ring base
>>> addresses which fixes the static assertion failure, as the size of
>>> dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS which varies based on
>>> the build config.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Vamsi,
>>
>> "fix static assertion failure" is not enough descriptive.
>> assertions already added to verify assumptions, and in this case it seems it
>> failed, but what was actually wrong?
>>
>> Is it that allocated memory size for ring wrong? (this is what I got from
>> commit log but I am not sure)
>>
>> Can you please describe what actually was wrong and fixed now?
>>
> Hi Ferruh,
>
> Earlier sa_soft_exp_ring struct member was an array of pointers and it's size is linked to num RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,
> and the whole struct size is confined and protected by size assertion. It resulted in build failure with -Dmax_ethports=1024
> option and assertion caught that failure. V2 fixes the issues by allocating the required memory dynamically instead
> of using array of pointers.
>
just to double check if I got it right,
The failing assertion is:
PLT_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(struct nix_inl_dev) <= ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ);
Technically you can calculate the 'ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ' as a function
of 'RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS' and that would work (although need to calculate
size for proper cache alignment).
But instead you prefer to convert array to function pointer to fix
the struct size and make it independent from the configured
'RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS' config.
And I assume current magic number for the 'ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ' is
calculated based on max memory requirement of the cn9k & cn10k:
#define ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ (1280)
If so it can be better to describe 'ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ' as what
it is calculated from, like following but it is up to you:
max(sizeof(x), sizeof(y)) ...
>>> Bugzilla ID: 940
>>> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry
>>> notification") Cc:stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Wei Ling<weix.ling@intel.com>
>>> Reported-by: Yu Jiang<yux.jiang@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru<vattunuru@marvell.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi<syalavarthi@marvell.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
>>> ---
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 6:44 PM
> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion
> failure
>
> On 3/4/2022 10:20 AM, Vamsi Krishna Attunuru wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:52 PM
> >> To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> >> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; yux.jiang@intel.com;
> >> stable@dpdk.org; Wei Ling <weix.ling@intel.com>; Srikanth Yalavarthi
> >> <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] common/cnxk: fix static assertion
> >> failure
> >>
> >> External Email
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> - On 3/2/2022 1:46 PM, Vamsi Attunuru wrote:
> >>> Use dynamically allocated memory for storing soft expiry ring base
> >>> addresses which fixes the static assertion failure, as the size of
> >>> dynamic allocation depends on RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS which varies based
> on
> >>> the build config.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Vamsi,
> >>
> >> "fix static assertion failure" is not enough descriptive.
> >> assertions already added to verify assumptions, and in this case it
> >> seems it failed, but what was actually wrong?
> >>
> >> Is it that allocated memory size for ring wrong? (this is what I got
> >> from commit log but I am not sure)
> >>
> >> Can you please describe what actually was wrong and fixed now?
> >>
> > Hi Ferruh,
> >
> > Earlier sa_soft_exp_ring struct member was an array of pointers and
> > it's size is linked to num RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS, and the whole struct size
> > is confined and protected by size assertion. It resulted in build failure with -
> Dmax_ethports=1024 option and assertion caught that failure. V2 fixes the
> issues by allocating the required memory dynamically instead
> > of using array of pointers.
> >
>
> just to double check if I got it right,
>
> The failing assertion is:
> PLT_STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(struct nix_inl_dev) <= ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ);
>
Yes.
> Technically you can calculate the 'ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ' as a function of
> 'RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS' and that would work (although need to calculate size
> for proper cache alignment).
>
> But instead you prefer to convert array to function pointer to fix the struct
> size and make it independent from the configured 'RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS'
> config.
>
Correct.
>
> And I assume current magic number for the 'ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ' is
> calculated based on max memory requirement of the cn9k & cn10k:
> #define ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ (1280)
>
> If so it can be better to describe 'ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ' as what it is
> calculated from, like following but it is up to you:
> max(sizeof(x), sizeof(y)) ...
>
correct, I will check the better approach upon the usage.
> >>> Bugzilla ID: 940
> >>> Fixes: d26185716d3f ("net/cnxk: support outbound soft expiry
> >>> notification") Cc:stable@dpdk.org
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Wei Ling<weix.ling@intel.com>
> >>> Reported-by: Yu Jiang<yux.jiang@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru<vattunuru@marvell.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi<syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> V2: Add bugzilla & reportee details, remove unused changes.
> >>> ---
> >
@@ -330,12 +330,13 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_init(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
struct dev *dev = &nix->dev;
struct msix_offset_rsp *rsp;
struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev;
+ size_t sa_sz, ring_sz;
uint16_t sso_pffunc;
uint8_t eng_grpmask;
uint64_t blkaddr, i;
+ uint64_t *ring_base;
uint16_t nb_lf;
void *sa_base;
- size_t sa_sz;
int j, rc;
void *sa;
@@ -468,16 +469,16 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_init(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
/* Allocate memory to be used as a ring buffer to poll for
* soft expiry event from ucode
*/
+ ring_sz = (ROC_IPSEC_ERR_RING_MAX_ENTRY + 1) * sizeof(uint64_t);
+ ring_base = inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring;
for (i = 0; i < nix->outb_se_ring_cnt; i++) {
- inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i] =
- plt_zmalloc((ROC_IPSEC_ERR_RING_MAX_ENTRY + 1) *
- sizeof(uint64_t),
- 0);
- if (!inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[i]) {
+ ring_base[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i] =
+ PLT_U64_CAST(plt_zmalloc(ring_sz, 0));
+ if (!ring_base[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i]) {
plt_err("Couldn't allocate memory for soft exp ring");
while (i--)
- plt_free(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring
- [nix->outb_se_ring_base + i]);
+ plt_free(PLT_PTR_CAST(
+ ring_base[nix->outb_se_ring_base + i]));
rc = -ENOMEM;
goto lf_fini;
}
@@ -504,6 +505,7 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_fini(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
struct idev_cfg *idev = idev_get_cfg();
struct dev *dev = &nix->dev;
struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev;
+ uint64_t *ring_base;
int i, rc, ret = 0;
if (!nix->inl_outb_ena)
@@ -537,10 +539,11 @@ roc_nix_inl_outb_fini(struct roc_nix *roc_nix)
if (idev && idev->nix_inl_dev) {
inl_dev = idev->nix_inl_dev;
+ ring_base = inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring;
for (i = 0; i < ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS; i++) {
- if (inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[i])
- plt_free(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[i]);
+ if (ring_base[i])
+ plt_free(PLT_PTR_CAST(ring_base[i]));
}
}
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ struct roc_nix_inl_dev {
bool set_soft_exp_poll;
/* End of input parameters */
-#define ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ (2304)
+#define ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ (1280)
uint8_t reserved[ROC_NIX_INL_MEM_SZ] __plt_cache_aligned;
} __plt_cache_aligned;
@@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ inl_outb_soft_exp_poll(struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev, uint32_t ring_idx)
uint32_t port_id;
port_id = ring_idx / ROC_NIX_SOFT_EXP_PER_PORT_MAX_RINGS;
- ring_base = inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[ring_idx];
+ ring_base = PLT_PTR_CAST(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring[ring_idx]);
if (!ring_base) {
plt_err("Invalid soft exp ring base");
return;
@@ -751,6 +751,14 @@ nix_inl_outb_poll_thread_setup(struct nix_inl_dev *inl_dev)
inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap_mem = mem;
inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap = bmap;
+ inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring = plt_zmalloc(
+ ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS * sizeof(uint64_t), 0);
+ if (!inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring) {
+ plt_err("soft expiry ring pointer array alloc failed");
+ plt_free(mem);
+ rc = -ENOMEM;
+ goto exit;
+ }
for (i = 0; i < ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS; i++)
plt_bitmap_clear(inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap, i);
@@ -896,6 +904,7 @@ roc_nix_inl_dev_fini(struct roc_nix_inl_dev *roc_inl_dev)
pthread_join(inl_dev->soft_exp_poll_thread, NULL);
plt_bitmap_free(inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap);
plt_free(inl_dev->soft_exp_ring_bmap_mem);
+ plt_free(inl_dev->sa_soft_exp_ring);
}
/* Flush Inbound CTX cache entries */
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ struct nix_inl_dev {
/* OUTB soft expiry poll thread */
pthread_t soft_exp_poll_thread;
uint32_t soft_exp_poll_freq;
- void *sa_soft_exp_ring[ROC_NIX_INL_MAX_SOFT_EXP_RNGS];
+ uint64_t *sa_soft_exp_ring;
/* Soft expiry ring bitmap */
struct plt_bitmap *soft_exp_ring_bmap;
@@ -63,6 +63,13 @@
#ifndef PLT_ETHER_ADDR_LEN
#define PLT_ETHER_ADDR_LEN RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN
#endif
+
+/* Cast to specific datatypes */
+#define PLT_PTR_CAST(val) ((void *)(val))
+#define PLT_U64_CAST(val) ((uint64_t)(val))
+#define PLT_U32_CAST(val) ((uint32_t)(val))
+#define PLT_U16_CAST(val) ((uint16_t)(val))
+
/** Divide ceil */
#define PLT_DIV_CEIL(x, y) \
({ \