On 11-Jan-18 4:07 AM, Jianfeng Tan wrote:
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c | 144 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h | 73 +++++++++++++++-
lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 2 +
3 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
index 70519cc..f194a52 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
static int mp_fd = -1;
static char *mp_sec_sockets[MAX_SECONDARY_PROCS];
static pthread_mutex_t mp_mutex_action = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
+static pthread_mutex_t mp_mutex_request = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
struct action_entry {
TAILQ_ENTRY(action_entry) next; /**< Next attached action entry */
@@ -49,6 +50,10 @@ static struct action_entry_list action_entry_list =
struct mp_msghdr {
char action_name[MAX_ACTION_NAME_LEN];
+#define MP_MSG 0 /* Share message with peers, will not block */
+#define MP_REQ 1 /* Request for information, Will block for a reply */
+#define MP_REP 2 /* Reply to previously-received request */
nitpicking, but... response instead of reply?
+ int type;
int fds_num;
int len_params;
char params[0];
@@ -138,7 +143,8 @@ rte_eal_mp_action_unregister(const char *name)
}
static int
-read_msg(int fd, char *buf, int buflen, int *fds, int fds_num)
+read_msg(int fd, char *buf, int buflen,
+ int *fds, int fds_num, struct sockaddr_un *s)
<snip>
+ return mp_send(action_name, params, len_params,
+ fds, fds_num, MP_MSG, NULL);
+}
+
+int
+rte_eal_mp_request(const char *action_name,
+ void *params,
+ int len_p,
+ int fds[],
+ int fds_in,
+ int fds_out)
name == NULL? name too long?
+{
+ int i, j;
+ int sockfd;
+ int nprocs;
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct mp_msghdr *req;
+ struct timeval tv;
+ char buf[MAX_MSG_LENGTH];
+ struct mp_msghdr *hdr;
+
+ RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "request: %s\n", action_name);
+
+ if (fds_in > SCM_MAX_FD || fds_out > SCM_MAX_FD) {
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Cannot send more than %d FDs\n", SCM_MAX_FD);
+ rte_errno = -E2BIG;
(this also applies to previous patches) you set rte_errno to -EINVAL in
format_msg when message with parameters is too big - should that be
setting -E2BIG as well? Also, maybe not set rte_errno in multiple
places, and put all parameter checking (or at least errno setting) in
rte_eal_mp_* functions?
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ req = format_msg(action_name, params, len_p, fds_in, MP_REQ);
+ if (req == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ if ((sockfd = open_unix_fd(0)) < 0) {
+ free(req);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ tv.tv_sec = 5; /* 5 Secs Timeout */
+ tv.tv_usec = 0;
+ if (setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO,
+ (const void *)&tv, sizeof(struct timeval)) < 0)
+ RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "Failed to set recv timeout\n");
+
+ /* Only allow one req at a time */
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&mp_mutex_request);
+
+ if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
+ nprocs = 0;
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_SECONDARY_PROCS; ++i)
What follows is a bit confusing, some comments explaining what happens
and maybe more informative variable names would've been helpful.
+ if (!mp_sec_sockets[i]) {
+ j = i;
+ nprocs++;
+ }
+
+ if (nprocs > 1) {
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
+ "multi secondary processes not supported\n");
+ goto free_and_ret;
+ }
+
<snip>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
