[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop and reset

Carrillo, Erik G erik.g.carrillo at intel.com
Thu Oct 8 15:58:49 CEST 2020


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 5:28 AM
> To: Carrillo, Erik G <erik.g.carrillo at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; stable at dpdk.org; nd <nd at arm.com>; Honnappa
> Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Sarosh Arif
> <sarosh.arif at emumba.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] timer: add limitation note for sync stop
> and reset
> 
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:23 AM Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com> wrote:
> > > If a timer's callback function calls rte_timer_reset_sync() or
> > > rte_timer_stop_sync() on another timer that is in the RUNNING state
> > > and owned by the current lcore, the *_sync() calls will loop indefinitely.
> > >
> > > Relatedly, if a timer's callback function calls *_sync() on another
> > > timer that is in the RUNNING state and is owned by a different
> > > lcore, but a timer callback function runs on that different lcore
> > > and calls
> > > *_sync() on a timer that is in the RUNNING state and owned by the
> > > current lcore, the two lcores will loop indefinitely.
> > >
> > > Add a note in the rte_timer_stop_sync and rte_timer_reset_sync
> > > documentation that indicates that these APIs should not be used
> > > inside timer callback functions in order to avoid the hangs
> > > described above, and suggests an alternative.
> > >
> > > Bugzilla ID: 491
> > > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo at intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> 
> Applied, thanks.
> 
> Since we go with documenting a limitation, should we mark the original
> patches [1] and [2] as rejected instead of deferred?
> 
> 1: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/75156/
> 2: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/73683/
> 
> 
Thanks, David.  

Yes, those patches should be moved to "rejected" - I tried to do it myself, but got permission errors.  Sarosh, can you make these updates?

Thanks,
Erik

> --
> David Marchand



More information about the stable mailing list