[v9] eal: add bus cleanup to eal cleanup
Checks
Commit Message
During EAL init, all buses are probed and the devices found are
initialized. On eal_cleanup(), the inverse does not happen, meaning any
allocated memory and other configuration will not be cleaned up
appropriately on exit.
Currently, in order for device cleanup to take place, applications must
call the driver-relevant functions to ensure proper cleanup is done before
the application exits. Since initialization occurs for all devices on the
bus, not just the devices used by an application, it requires a)
application awareness of all bus devices that could have been probed on the
system, and b) code duplication across applications to ensure cleanup is
performed. An example of this is rte_eth_dev_close() which is commonly used
across the example applications.
This patch proposes adding bus cleanup to the eal_cleanup() to make EAL's
init/exit more symmetrical, ensuring all bus devices are cleaned up
appropriately without the application needing to be aware of all bus types
that may have been probed during initialization.
Contained in this patch are the changes required to perform cleanup for
devices on the PCI bus and VDEV bus during eal_cleanup(). There would be an
ask for bus maintainers to add the relevant cleanup for their buses since
they have the domain expertise.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com>
Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Reviewed-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
v9:
* move bus cleanup before trace save and uninitialize
v8:
* rebase
v7:
* free rte_pci_device structs during cleanup
* free rte_vdev_device structs during cleanup
v6:
* add bus_cleanup to eal_cleanup for FreeBSD
* add bus_cleanup to eal_cleanup for Windows
* remove bus cleanup function to remove rte_ prefix
* other minor fixes
v5:
* remove unnecessary logs
* move rte_bus_cleanup() definition to eal_private.h
* fix return values for vdev_cleanup and pci_cleanup
v4:
* rebase
v3:
* add vdev bus cleanup
v2:
* change log level from INFO to DEBUG for PCI cleanup
* add abignore entries for rte_bus related false positives
---
drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/eal/common/eal_common_bus.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
lib/eal/common/eal_private.h | 10 ++++++++++
lib/eal/freebsd/eal.c | 1 +
lib/eal/include/bus_driver.h | 13 +++++++++++++
lib/eal/linux/eal.c | 1 +
lib/eal/windows/eal.c | 1 +
8 files changed, 98 insertions(+)
Comments
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:47 PM Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com> wrote:
>
> During EAL init, all buses are probed and the devices found are
> initialized. On eal_cleanup(), the inverse does not happen, meaning any
> allocated memory and other configuration will not be cleaned up
> appropriately on exit.
>
> Currently, in order for device cleanup to take place, applications must
> call the driver-relevant functions to ensure proper cleanup is done before
> the application exits. Since initialization occurs for all devices on the
> bus, not just the devices used by an application, it requires a)
> application awareness of all bus devices that could have been probed on the
> system, and b) code duplication across applications to ensure cleanup is
> performed. An example of this is rte_eth_dev_close() which is commonly used
> across the example applications.
>
> This patch proposes adding bus cleanup to the eal_cleanup() to make EAL's
> init/exit more symmetrical, ensuring all bus devices are cleaned up
> appropriately without the application needing to be aware of all bus types
> that may have been probed during initialization.
>
> Contained in this patch are the changes required to perform cleanup for
> devices on the PCI bus and VDEV bus during eal_cleanup(). There would be an
> ask for bus maintainers to add the relevant cleanup for their buses since
> they have the domain expertise.
Cc: maintainers for info.
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> Reviewed-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Applied, thanks.
05/10/2022 09:45, David Marchand:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:47 PM Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com> wrote:
> > This patch proposes adding bus cleanup to the eal_cleanup() to make EAL's
> > init/exit more symmetrical, ensuring all bus devices are cleaned up
> > appropriately without the application needing to be aware of all bus types
> > that may have been probed during initialization.
> >
> > Contained in this patch are the changes required to perform cleanup for
> > devices on the PCI bus and VDEV bus during eal_cleanup(). There would be an
> > ask for bus maintainers to add the relevant cleanup for their buses since
> > they have the domain expertise.
>
> Cc: maintainers for info.
Kevin,
When you don't go to the end of a task, you must ask help to complete it.
Here you assume others will do it,
but you don't even Cc the relevant maintainers.
Please could you track that all buses will get the implementation?
You should open a bugzilla ticket for each bus,
and assign it to the relevant maintainer.
Thanks
Hi Thomas, All,
On 05/10/2022 10:41, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 05/10/2022 09:45, David Marchand:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:47 PM Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com> wrote:
>>> This patch proposes adding bus cleanup to the eal_cleanup() to make EAL's
>>> init/exit more symmetrical, ensuring all bus devices are cleaned up
>>> appropriately without the application needing to be aware of all bus types
>>> that may have been probed during initialization.
>>>
>>> Contained in this patch are the changes required to perform cleanup for
>>> devices on the PCI bus and VDEV bus during eal_cleanup(). There would be an
>>> ask for bus maintainers to add the relevant cleanup for their buses since
>>> they have the domain expertise.
>> Cc: maintainers for info.
> Kevin,
> When you don't go to the end of a task, you must ask help to complete it.
> Here you assume others will do it,
> but you don't even Cc the relevant maintainers.
>
> Please could you track that all buses will get the implementation?
> You should open a bugzilla ticket for each bus,
> and assign it to the relevant maintainer.
> Thanks
>
Bugzilla tickets created:
[auxiliary] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1090
[dpaa] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1091
[fslmc] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1092
[vmbus] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1093
[ifpga] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094
I've assigned to maintainers that have a registered account with Bugzilla.
I was not able to assign the iFPGA ticket to Rosen Xu since his email is
not registered.
--
Kevin
05/10/2022 13:03, Kevin Laatz:
> Hi Thomas, All,
>
> On 05/10/2022 10:41, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 05/10/2022 09:45, David Marchand:
> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:47 PM Kevin Laatz <kevin.laatz@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> This patch proposes adding bus cleanup to the eal_cleanup() to make EAL's
> >>> init/exit more symmetrical, ensuring all bus devices are cleaned up
> >>> appropriately without the application needing to be aware of all bus types
> >>> that may have been probed during initialization.
> >>>
> >>> Contained in this patch are the changes required to perform cleanup for
> >>> devices on the PCI bus and VDEV bus during eal_cleanup(). There would be an
> >>> ask for bus maintainers to add the relevant cleanup for their buses since
> >>> they have the domain expertise.
> >> Cc: maintainers for info.
> > Kevin,
> > When you don't go to the end of a task, you must ask help to complete it.
> > Here you assume others will do it,
> > but you don't even Cc the relevant maintainers.
> >
> > Please could you track that all buses will get the implementation?
> > You should open a bugzilla ticket for each bus,
> > and assign it to the relevant maintainer.
> > Thanks
> >
> Bugzilla tickets created:
>
> [auxiliary] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1090
> [dpaa] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1091
> [fslmc] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1092
> [vmbus] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1093
> [ifpga] https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094
>
> I've assigned to maintainers that have a registered account with Bugzilla.
>
> I was not able to assign the iFPGA ticket to Rosen Xu since his email is
> not registered.
Thanks, please don't hesitate to ping again if there is no fast enough progress.
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <rte_common.h>
#include <rte_devargs.h>
#include <rte_vfio.h>
+#include <rte_tailq.h>
#include "private.h"
@@ -439,6 +440,32 @@ pci_probe(void)
return (probed && probed == failed) ? -1 : 0;
}
+static int
+pci_cleanup(void)
+{
+ struct rte_pci_device *dev, *tmp_dev;
+ int error = 0;
+
+ RTE_TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(dev, &rte_pci_bus.device_list, next, tmp_dev) {
+ struct rte_pci_driver *drv = dev->driver;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (drv == NULL || drv->remove == NULL)
+ continue;
+
+ ret = drv->remove(dev);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ rte_errno = errno;
+ error = -1;
+ }
+ dev->driver = NULL;
+ dev->device.driver = NULL;
+ free(dev);
+ }
+
+ return error;
+}
+
/* dump one device */
static int
pci_dump_one_device(FILE *f, struct rte_pci_device *dev)
@@ -856,6 +883,7 @@ struct rte_pci_bus rte_pci_bus = {
.bus = {
.scan = rte_pci_scan,
.probe = pci_probe,
+ .cleanup = pci_cleanup,
.find_device = pci_find_device,
.plug = pci_plug,
.unplug = pci_unplug,
@@ -567,6 +567,32 @@ vdev_probe(void)
return ret;
}
+static int
+vdev_cleanup(void)
+{
+ struct rte_vdev_device *dev, *tmp_dev;
+ int error = 0;
+
+ RTE_TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(dev, &vdev_device_list, next, tmp_dev) {
+ const struct rte_vdev_driver *drv;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ drv = container_of(dev->device.driver, const struct rte_vdev_driver, driver);
+
+ if (drv == NULL || drv->remove == NULL)
+ continue;
+
+ ret = drv->remove(dev);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ error = -1;
+
+ dev->device.driver = NULL;
+ free(dev);
+ }
+
+ return error;
+}
+
struct rte_device *
rte_vdev_find_device(const struct rte_device *start, rte_dev_cmp_t cmp,
const void *data)
@@ -625,6 +651,7 @@ vdev_get_iommu_class(void)
static struct rte_bus rte_vdev_bus = {
.scan = vdev_scan,
.probe = vdev_probe,
+ .cleanup = vdev_cleanup,
.find_device = rte_vdev_find_device,
.plug = vdev_plug,
.unplug = vdev_unplug,
@@ -91,6 +91,23 @@ rte_bus_probe(void)
return 0;
}
+/* Clean up all devices of all buses */
+int
+eal_bus_cleanup(void)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct rte_bus *bus;
+
+ TAILQ_FOREACH(bus, &rte_bus_list, next) {
+ if (bus->cleanup == NULL)
+ continue;
+ if (bus->cleanup() != 0)
+ ret = -1;
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
/* Dump information of a single bus */
static int
bus_dump_one(FILE *f, struct rte_bus *bus)
@@ -441,6 +441,16 @@ int rte_eal_memory_detach(void);
*/
struct rte_bus *rte_bus_find_by_device_name(const char *str);
+/**
+ * For each device on the buses, call the driver-specific function for
+ * device cleanup.
+ *
+ * @return
+ * 0 for successful cleanup
+ * !0 otherwise
+ */
+int eal_bus_cleanup(void);
+
/**
* Create the unix channel for primary/secondary communication.
*
@@ -894,6 +894,7 @@ rte_eal_cleanup(void)
eal_get_internal_configuration();
rte_service_finalize();
rte_mp_channel_cleanup();
+ eal_bus_cleanup();
rte_trace_save();
eal_trace_fini();
/* after this point, any DPDK pointers will become dangling */
@@ -205,6 +205,18 @@ typedef int (*rte_bus_hot_unplug_handler_t)(struct rte_device *dev);
*/
typedef int (*rte_bus_sigbus_handler_t)(const void *failure_addr);
+/**
+ * Implementation specific cleanup function which is responsible for cleaning up
+ * devices on that bus with applicable drivers.
+ *
+ * This is called while iterating over each registered bus.
+ *
+ * @return
+ * 0 for successful cleanup
+ * !0 for any error during cleanup
+ */
+typedef int (*rte_bus_cleanup_t)(void);
+
/**
* Bus scan policies
*/
@@ -256,6 +268,7 @@ struct rte_bus {
/**< handle hot-unplug failure on the bus */
rte_bus_sigbus_handler_t sigbus_handler;
/**< handle sigbus error on the bus */
+ rte_bus_cleanup_t cleanup; /**< Cleanup devices on bus */
};
/**
@@ -1363,6 +1363,7 @@ rte_eal_cleanup(void)
vfio_mp_sync_cleanup();
#endif
rte_mp_channel_cleanup();
+ eal_bus_cleanup();
rte_trace_save();
eal_trace_fini();
/* after this point, any DPDK pointers will become dangling */
@@ -263,6 +263,7 @@ rte_eal_cleanup(void)
eal_intr_thread_cancel();
eal_mem_virt2iova_cleanup();
+ eal_bus_cleanup();
/* after this point, any DPDK pointers will become dangling */
rte_eal_memory_detach();
eal_cleanup_config(internal_conf);