Re: [dpdk-dev] Should we disallow running secondaries after primary has died?

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:05:02AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> While investigating this bug:
> 
> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=284
> 
> I came across a realization that, when primary process dies, very little
> actually works. There are some documented issues that are already present
> when secondary processes keep running, like memory map becoming static, and
> hotplug not working any more.
> 
> What is less known (and documented) is that VFIO also completely stops
> working when initializing processes, because some time since 18.xx releases,
> we've fixed a long standing VFIO-related bug that had to do with creating
> new containers every time a secondary is run - secondary processes will now
> reuse the primary process's container instead.
> 
> Meaning, for VFIO devices, secondary process *initialization* will fail
> after primary process has died, because there is no longer a process from
> which we can get the VFIO container from. Things will still sort-of work
> with igb_uio or in vfio-noiommu mode, but again - no memory map updates, no
> hotplug, potentially other things that i don't even know about.
> 
> Therefore, while ideally we would like people to have primary process always
> running, the least we can do to avoid documenting a complex matrix of "what
> is supported in which case" is to disallow secondary process initialization
> after primary process has died.
> 
> ("disallow" as in "explicitly document it as unsupported", although we can
> also outright prevent it if we want - rte_eal_primary_proc_alive() will tell
> us that)
> 
Documenting this limitation seems a good thing to do. I'm not sure that
it's worthwhile trying to make the scenario (of running a secondary after a
primary has terminated) supported.

/Bruce