From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D76F2946; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id d199so10212594wmd.1; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:51:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=/J0SaCTvYwZt+5i1jNp6pXgFtvUFjzHvoBKNdTAakAY=; b=CWz8gh5r8U4qqnOlljR1wRYwUoPjWwQ/j5kS+npP+MCftXDKvHCEWR+aBGPpIlScuH f2NCTMaALBlTCrb2UvVEaQc0nVTt0cW6BFvrZRcl3vFhrCDG182t/KWXyNg3OTbLiscq AXcNV02NM1SQFCj4gT1pcIeO2/NIqUh94Zl/wETrlUCx9l0LgdFugeimb2YCPvTQnxBR +sdnc5GI4lnSR8p1SWEq51BDtmDi5KD2lxfRBtJ06/6QyJNd5yVGoyHuqBaoZhiNXMpR w/IW8lb6ytnTnTTNcfZQvfW7VmhGNiZFGSvnEwUd1+lSH/CkEwA4lvjOPMqzZoNTsRnv H9tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/J0SaCTvYwZt+5i1jNp6pXgFtvUFjzHvoBKNdTAakAY=; b=h2pQKp1HwS0ShVTSGnJUqk7THEITFrTn1EA5aI9jt8GqUOD8b110l7ARZI4/8JoWBV Oikg7iXjRwteifMXuJdbBsk+HQ1bCMhL/Gy83vlE5hTyPgqTeupi5aLIyYMPxnTQjCz0 IL9Vu5i6DidXfaRdRj7+3VJpN6msWEdx1o9G9Rws9Ek3eAiRrpKO5ee1DCBp3KqkrrEA 3QIF0GwOx9/RLlcJBm+37qavoAl0HztvQAAUy64iJSgFWUGBozNy9B+YktvIujNOEhbt Kv54JeSJT5XgshN79OGSZMXjf9nAi+DuDp9EGnf5KwDL5k0KOniJJsk+yA9NYQp+yt+U 9KrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmoyGnxnZCa5qBrf4TxzbKY1vo+J4/HFxCdHFJ6SDo5FCvjnapueOrwNA+O/hTvZntXP5U0X5hOj1AOoA== X-Received: by 10.28.73.214 with SMTP id w205mr23516767wma.86.1477320705989; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jblunck@gmail.com Received: by 10.28.92.206 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <61df7d78-c57a-d379-252a-aa7128e7e62e@intel.com> References: <1473251290-22053-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <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> From: Jan Blunck Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:51:45 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zYH3tmQKRKgqT1WDH2w4-qhewKo Message-ID: To: Declan Doherty Cc: Eric Kinzie , Bruce Richardson , Ilya Maximets , dev@dpdk.org, Heetae Ahn , Yuanhan Liu , Bernard Iremonger , stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [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, 24 Oct 2016 14:51:46 -0000 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