DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Cc: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>, "Song\,
	Keesang" <Keesang.Song@amd.com>,
	"ktraynor\@redhat.com" <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
	"bluca\@debian.org" <bluca@debian.org>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"dev\@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"ferruh.yigit\@intel.com" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"bruce.richardson\@intel.com" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"honnappa.nagarahalli\@arm.com" <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	"drc\@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"stable\@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>, "Grimm\,
	Jon" <Jon.Grimm@amd.com>, "Hollingsworth\,
	Brent" <brent.hollingsworth@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > RTE_MAX_LCORE
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:38:28 -0800
Message-ID: <20200221083828.4b39a854@hermes.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7t36b4c7xh.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:48:58 -0500
Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote:

> David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:19 AM Song, Keesang <Keesang.Song@amd.com> wrote:  
> >>
> >> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]  
> >
> > Please, get this header removed.
> > This is a public mailing list.
> >
> >  
> >> Thanks Thomas for bringing this up.
> >> I consider this is not a new feature, but rather a fix to address
> >> the issue with statically assigned maximum lcore limit on
> >> high-density CPU platform such as AMD Epyc.
> >> As I see a lot of DPDK adopters are still using LTS 18.11 & 19.11,
> >> and they have 1~2 yrs of lifetime left, we like to backport this to
> >> LTS 18.11 & 19.11 at least.  
> >
> > It is not a fix.
> >
> > The use of static arrays is a design choice that goes back to the
> > early days in dpdk.
> > The addition of --lcores came in after this, but it was introduced for
> > a different use case than placing lcores on any physical core.
> > And there was no claim that a core > RTE_MAX_LCORE would be usable.
> >
> >
> > When testing on a new hardware, it is normal to observe some limitations.
> > Running DPDK on those platforms should be possible: "should be"
> > because I do not have access to this hardware and saw neither tests
> > reports nor performance numbers.
> > Before this patch, the limitation is that on Epyc, cores >
> > RTE_MAX_LCORE are not usable.
> >
> >
> > Now, this change is quite constrained.
> > If we backport it, I don't expect issues in the main dpdk components
> > (based on code review and ovs tests with a RTE_MAX_LCORE set to 16 on
> > a 24 cores system).
> > There might be issues in some examples or not widely used library
> > which uses a physical core id instead of a lcore id.
> >
> >
> > This is the same recurring question "do we allow new features in a
> > stable branch?".  
> 
> Usually, the answer is 'no'.  But we do allow some "new" things to be
> backported (pci ids, etc) that might be required to enable older
> functionality.  Additionally, I'm sure if some feature were required to
> mitigate a CVE, we'd rather favor backporting it.
> 
> I guess we could pose a litmus test:
> 
>   1. Is the problem this feature solves so widespread that it needs to
>      be addressed ASAP?
>   2. Is there a known workaround to the problem this is solving?
>   3. How intrusive is the feature?
>   4. Is it shown to be stable in the mainline (number of fixes, testing,
>      etc)?
>   5. Is it constrained enough that we know we can support it with even
>      higher priority than other things?
> 
> Probably other questions that will need to be asked.
> 
> And even in that list of question, I'm not sure I'd be able to advocate
> backporting this in the upstream branches - it hasn't had much testing.
> It's unstable.  It's "difficult" to use.  It is not widespread that
> people have so many cores.  The workaround is much simpler than
> supporting this (recompile).
> 
> >
> > --
> > David Marchand  
> 

RTE_MAX_LCORES is exposed in API/ABI to application.
Many applications use that to size internal data structures.
Having rte_lcore_id() potentially return a larger value would cause
out of bounds access (and crash) in that application.

  reply index

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-02 15:35 David Marchand
2019-12-02 15:41 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] eal/windows: fix cpuset macro name David Marchand
2019-12-02 15:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] eal: do not cache lcore detection state David Marchand
2019-12-02 15:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] eal: display all detected cores at startup David Marchand
2019-12-02 15:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] eal: remove limitation on cpuset with --lcores David Marchand
2020-01-14 12:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > RTE_MAX_LCORE David Marchand
2020-01-14 15:32   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores >RTE_MAX_LCORE Morten Brørup
2020-01-20 18:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > RTE_MAX_LCORE Yigit, Ferruh
2020-01-20 19:35   ` David Marchand
2020-01-21  0:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-21  8:04   ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-02-21  8:19     ` Song, Keesang
2020-02-21  9:40       ` David Marchand
2020-02-21 14:48         ` Aaron Conole
2020-02-21 16:38           ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2020-05-29  3:05     ` Song, Keesang
2020-05-29  3:05       ` Song, Keesang
2020-06-01 21:22         ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-06-01 22:54           ` Song, Keesang
2020-06-09 16:30             ` Song, Keesang
2020-06-09 17:48               ` Luca Boccassi
2020-06-09 21:34                 ` Kevin Traynor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200221083828.4b39a854@hermes.lan \
    --to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=Jon.Grimm@amd.com \
    --cc=Keesang.Song@amd.com \
    --cc=aconole@redhat.com \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=brent.hollingsworth@amd.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox