From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF02A04C0; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E167C271; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690E7237 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:25 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1573556964; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LCxPzXKecgaVYyH+zLj0anXyW3/6dGpeYAh15Lc3PgU=; b=RDw2QkuBULPqehTQM+HICZDLHHO9tU3pUNMQVJ6cQGmsUv2Odf+2Md/G1LHL8J7kRwBTMP BO2rdD5VrQReV2Hm8XUNVWGer77vCBxaMwwmh8qsgQbm2/Y5On8ppldiT9sZNcF8EcWQFp ge4HsqCgjVBl8dLs0U/3OPIZ6K4YAHA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-79-mqAa6ZOBOlGsobTOKSkvVg-1; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 06:09:20 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75896100726C; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.116.111] (ovpn-116-111.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.111]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BFC528D3C; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:09:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "Eelco Chaudron" To: "Zhang, Xiao" Cc: "Zhang, Qi Z" , dev@dpdk.org, "Xing, Beilei" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:09:16 +0100 Message-ID: <56E46949-C2B5-42C6-9F21-E4A5E519A628@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <675a204e3f5630d66cfa79b933da25a6c9227069.1568705792.git.echaudro@redhat.com> <94479800C636CB44BD422CB454846E013CE63719@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <65C73CA4-E1AA-44F2-9258-586B23CC1448@redhat.com> <63F37687-13EA-426A-A23D-301EE6CB65F0@redhat.com> <94479800C636CB44BD422CB454846E013CE7E99B@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <724A0BBE-66F4-40D3-A38E-8F4E9C09ECC5@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-MC-Unique: mqAa6ZOBOlGsobTOKSkvVg-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: force promiscuous state after VF reset X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 12 Nov 2019, at 1:52, Zhang, Xiao wrote: > Hi Eelco, > > Seems you missed this mail. Not sure why I missed this email, as it does not show up in my email=20 client :( See below=E2=80=A6 >>>>>> Hi Eelco, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you may need add more detailed message in the commit log >>>>>> or comments. >>>>> >>>>> My interpretation of the request was that Beilei wanted to know=20 >>>>> why >>>>> disabling promiscuous mode in HW was failing. Beilei can you >>>>> comment, is the additional description from Xiao enough? >>>> >>>> Yes, promisc_unicast_enabled flag is not cleared during vf reset >>>> because fail to disable promiscuous mode, So I think we need to=20 >>>> root >>>> cause why fail to disable promiscuous mode first. >>>> This patch looks like a workaround but not a fix. >>>> >>> >>> This was debugged together with Xiao and from what I understand is >>> that DPDK fails to reset promiscuous mode in hardware as PF and VF >>> operations are not synced between kernel and DPDK. >>> >>> Xiao told me this could not be fixed in another way, Xiao can you >>> comment? >>> >> >> Checked again, the root cause is not synced issue between kernel and=20 >> DPDK >> during reset. What is the root cause, so I can update the patch description for the=20 next revision. >> Suggest to remove the checking and setting of promisc_unicast_enabled=20 >> flag, >> since this flag is only used when enable/disable promiscuous mode. >> Considering the un-synced issue, it will be more clean if remove the=20 >> flag. >> Also same with flag promisc_multicast_enabled. So if I understand it correctly remove the following code: 2203 =09/* If enabled, just return */ 2204 =09if (vf->promisc_multicast_enabled) 2205 =09=09return 0; and 2222 =09/* If enabled, just return */ 2223 =09if (!vf->promisc_multicast_enabled) 2224 =09=09return 0; Or to remove the flags from the i40e_vf structure (and relative code): 1051 =09bool promisc_unicast_enabled; 1052 =09bool promisc_multicast_enabled; Let me know and I craft up a patch=E2=80=A6 Cheers, Eelco