prov/rxm: fix address comparison to remove duplicate connections #1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The address comparison to determine whether to reject or keep a duplicate connection was incorrect and falsely identifying too many loopback connections. The address to compare against should be the local EP's address, not the peer's address. This fix exposes an issue with the reject/close path which was not being taken before. A race condition during simultaneous connections was occurring where both sides sent a connection request. One side received a connection request, accepted, and closed its outgoing connection. However, the connection request had already been received by the peer, causing the peer to incorrectly identify that connection as a lost connection, causing send failures for any outstanding sends on that active connection. This patch could potentially cause issues in how lost connections are managed, but testing to date has not shown any issues... yet... Signed-off-by: aingerson <alexia.ingerson@intel.com>
ooststep
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2022
Utility providers have to call fi_getinfo again to get core providers resulting in deceptive and confusing log lines where a core provider might return FI_ENODATA for a utility provider but FI_SUCCESS for the app. Extra log levels were added that say Begin/End ofi_get_core_info to make this clearer but these debug-only (not info) logs can get lost among the hundreds of lines of output. To make it easier to distinguish between log lines with and without a core provider, specifically during fi_getinfo, add a log_prefix to the log output which clarifies that the log line was outputed as part of the layered fi_getinfo call For example, the following log line sees changes as such: libfabric:53685:1643663041:verbs:fabric:vrb_get_matching_info():1514<info> checking domain: #1 mlx5_0 libfabric:53685:1643663041:ofi_rxm:verbs:fabric:vrb_get_matching_info():1514<info> checking domain: #1 mlx5_0 Signed-off-by: aingerson <alexia.ingerson@intel.com>
ooststep
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 ofiwg#9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 ofiwg#10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 ofiwg#11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>
ooststep
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 ofiwg#9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 ofiwg#10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 ofiwg#11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>
ooststep
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 ofiwg#9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 ofiwg#10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 ofiwg#11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@intel.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The address comparison to determine whether to reject or keep a duplicate
connection was incorrect and falsely identifying too many loopback
connections. The address to compare against should be the local EP's
address, not the peer's address.
This fix exposes an issue with the reject/close path which was not being
taken before. A race condition during simultaneous connections was
occurring where both sides sent a connection request. One side received
a connection request, accepted, and closed its outgoing connection.
However, the connection request had already been received by the peer,
causing the peer to incorrectly identify that connection as a lost
connection, causing send failures for any outstanding sends on that
active connection.
This patch could potentially cause issues in how lost connections are
managed, but testing to date has not shown any issues... yet...
Signed-off-by: aingerson alexia.ingerson@intel.com