From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840982BC6; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:31:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2016 03:31:02 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,675,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="903903163" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.57]) ([10.237.220.57]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2016 03:30:59 -0800 To: Bruce Richardson , Declan Doherty References: <20161007020225.GA22829@roosta.home> <1854c9f5-eedf-fc7b-a786-7526b80b6efa@samsung.com> <20161012152421.GC104428@bricha3-MOBL3> <20161013233714.GC17047@roosta> <61df7d78-c57a-d379-252a-aa7128e7e62e@intel.com> <20161025125750.GB57276@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <674cdf6a-7a92-8d1a-4caa-f2582cf1b733@intel.com> <20161025140048.GB10444@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: Jan Blunck , Eric Kinzie , Ilya Maximets , dev@dpdk.org, Heetae Ahn , Yuanhan Liu , Bernard Iremonger , stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <7c4bc057-93ee-42e1-b7ce-c87460aeee2a@intel.com> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:30:58 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161025140048.GB10444@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] Revert "bonding: use existing enslaved device queues" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:31:04 -0000 On 10/25/2016 3:00 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote: >> On 25/10/16 13:57, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:07:17PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote: >>>> On 24/10/16 15:51, Jan Blunck wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Declan Doherty >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 14/10/16 00:37, Eric Kinzie wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed Oct 12 16:24:21 +0100 2016, Bruce Richardson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:24:54PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07.10.2016 05:02, Eric Kinzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed Sep 07 15:28:10 +0300 2016, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This reverts commit 5b7bb2bda5519b7800f814df64d4e015282140e5. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is necessary to reconfigure all queues every time because >>>>>>>>>>> configuration >>>>>>>>>>> can be changed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we're reconfiguring bonding device with new memory >>>>>>>>>>> pool, >>>>>>>>>>> already configured queues will still use the old one. And if the old >>>>>>>>>>> mempool be freed, application likely will panic in attempt to use >>>>>>>>>>> freed mempool. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This happens when we use the bonding device with OVS 2.6 while MTU >>>>>>>>>>> reconfiguration: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> PANIC in rte_mempool_get_ops(): >>>>>>>>>>> assert "(ops_index >= 0) && (ops_index < RTE_MEMPOOL_MAX_OPS_IDX)" >>>>>>>>>>> failed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 10 ++-------- >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c >>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c >>>>>>>>>>> index b20a272..eb5b6d1 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1305,8 +1305,6 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev >>>>>>>>>>> *bonded_eth_dev, >>>>>>>>>>> struct bond_rx_queue *bd_rx_q; >>>>>>>>>>> struct bond_tx_queue *bd_tx_q; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - uint16_t old_nb_tx_queues = slave_eth_dev->data->nb_tx_queues; >>>>>>>>>>> - uint16_t old_nb_rx_queues = slave_eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues; >>>>>>>>>>> int errval; >>>>>>>>>>> uint16_t q_id; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1347,9 +1345,7 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev >>>>>>>>>>> *bonded_eth_dev, >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /* Setup Rx Queues */ >>>>>>>>>>> - /* Use existing queues, if any */ >>>>>>>>>>> - for (q_id = old_nb_rx_queues; >>>>>>>>>>> - q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues; q_id++) { >>>>>>>>>>> + for (q_id = 0; q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues; >>>>>>>>>>> q_id++) { >>>>>>>>>>> bd_rx_q = (struct bond_rx_queue >>>>>>>>>>> *)bonded_eth_dev->data->rx_queues[q_id]; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> errval = >>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id, q_id, >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1365,9 +1361,7 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev >>>>>>>>>>> *bonded_eth_dev, >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /* Setup Tx Queues */ >>>>>>>>>>> - /* Use existing queues, if any */ >>>>>>>>>>> - for (q_id = old_nb_tx_queues; >>>>>>>>>>> - q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_tx_queues; q_id++) { >>>>>>>>>>> + for (q_id = 0; q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_tx_queues; >>>>>>>>>>> q_id++) { >>>>>>>>>>> bd_tx_q = (struct bond_tx_queue >>>>>>>>>>> *)bonded_eth_dev->data->tx_queues[q_id]; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> errval = >>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id, q_id, >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 2.7.4 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NAK >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are still some users of this code. Let's give them a chance to >>>>>>>>>> comment before removing it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are these users in CC-list? If not, could you, please, add them? >>>>>>>>> This patch awaits in mail-list already more than a month. I think, it's >>>>>>>>> enough >>>>>>>>> time period for all who wants to say something. Patch fixes a real bug >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> prevent using of DPDK bonding in all applications that reconfigures >>>>>>>>> devices >>>>>>>>> in runtime including OVS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eric, does reverting this patch cause you problems directly, or is your >>>>>>>> concern >>>>>>>> just with regards to potential impact to others? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> /Bruce >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This won't impact me directly. The users are CCed (different thread) >>>>>>> and I haven't seen any comment, so I no longer have any objection to >>>>>>> reverting this change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eric >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As there has been no further objections and this reinstates the original >>>>>> expected behavior of the bonding driver. I'm re-ack'ing for inclusion in >>>>>> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Declan Doherty >>>>> >>>>> Ok, I can revert the revert for us. >>>>> >>>>> Do I read this correctly that you are not interested in fixing this properly?! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>> >>>> Jan, sorry I missed the replies from last week due to the way my mail client >>>> was filtering the conversation. Let me have another look at this and I'll >>>> come back to the list. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Declan >>> >>> While this patch has already been applied to dpdk-next-net tree, it >>> appears that there is still some ongoing discussion about it. I'm >>> therefore planning to pull it back out of the tree for rc2. If a >>> subsequent consensus is reached we can see about including it in rc3. >>> >>> Declan, as maintainer, does this seem reasonable to you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> /Bruce >>> >> >> >> Hey Bruce, that seems reasonable, I would like to discuss this further with >> Jan and Ilya. >> > > Done. Hopefully consensus on a correct solution for this driver can be > reached soon. > Is there an update for this patch? Is a consensus reached? Thanks, ferruh