[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: use refcnt = 0 when debugging
Ananyev, Konstantin
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed Sep 6 16:53:52 CEST 2017
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chas Williams [mailto:3chas3 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:56 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; cw817q at att.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: use refcnt = 0 when debugging
>
> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 11:58 +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Chas Williams
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 11:46 AM
> > > To: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; cw817q at att.com
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mbuf: use refcnt = 0 when debugging
> > >
> > > [Note: My former email address is going away eventually. I am moving the
> > > conversation to my other email address which is a bit more permanent.]
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:27 +0100, Radu Nicolau wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/7/2017 5:11 PM, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
> > > > > After commit 8f094a9ac5d7 ("mbuf: set mbuf fields while in pool") is it
> > > > > much harder to detect a "double free". If the developer makes a copy
> > > > > of an mbuf pointer and frees it twice, this condition is never detected
> > > > > and the mbuf gets returned to the pool twice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this requires extra work to track, make this behavior conditional
> > > > > on CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Chas Williams <ciwillia at brocade.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -1304,10 +1329,13 @@ rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> > > > > m->next = NULL;
> > > > > m->nb_segs = 1;
> > > > > }
> > > > > +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG
> > > > > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, RTE_MBUF_UNUSED_CNT);
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > >
> > > > > return m;
> > > > >
> > > > > - } else if (rte_atomic16_add_return(&m->refcnt_atomic, -1) == 0) {
> > > > > + } else if (rte_mbuf_refcnt_update(m, -1) == 0) {
> > > > Why replace the use of atomic operation?
> > >
> > > It doesn't. rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() is also atomic(ish) but it slightly more
> > > optimal. This whole section is a little hazy actually. It looks like
> > > rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg() unwraps rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() so they can avoid
> > > setting the refcnt when the refcnt is already the 'correct' value.
> >
> > You don't need to use refcnt_update() here - if you take that path it already means
> > that m->refcnt_atomic != 1.
> > In fact, I think using refcnt_update () here might be a bit slower - as it means extra read.
> > Konstantin
>
> Yes, that is somewhat the point. If a mbuf can have a refcnt of 0,
> then we want to go into rte_mbuf_refcnt_update() which detects 0 -> -1.
Woulnd't __rte_mbuf_sanity_check(m, 0) at the start of prefree_seg()
already catch it?
Konstantin
> I could explicitly check this in prefree_seg but I was just restored the
> previous call into refcnt_update. I could explicitly check for refcnt =
> 0 in prefree_seg() but since we do have a routine for this...
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if (RTE_MBUF_INDIRECT(m))
> > > > > @@ -1317,7 +1345,7 @@ rte_pktmbuf_prefree_seg(struct rte_mbuf *m)
> > > > > m->next = NULL;
> > > > > m->nb_segs = 1;
> > > > > }
> > > > > - rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> > > > > + rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, RTE_MBUF_UNUSED_CNT);
> > > > >
> > > > > return m;
> > > > > }
> > > > Reviewed-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau at intel.com>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
More information about the dev
mailing list