From: "Benoit Ganne (bganne)" <bganne@cisco.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix link state update
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:03:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CH2PR11MB4327BBBE24E9B7AF788ABE36C1CB0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB4019095F23AC15AEEEC2088DD2CB0@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Matan,
>>>> mlx5 PMD refuses to update link state if link speed is defined but
>>>> status is down or if link speed is undefined but status is up, even
>>>> if the ioctl() succeeded.
>>>> This prevents application to detect link up/down event, especially
>>>> when the link speed is not correctly detected.
>>> Do you use the wait option? Or no wait?
>> We are using the no wait option.
> I suggest to call again if failed for N retries time.
Unfortunately it will not solve our problem: if link speed is undefined but the link is up then the test '!dev_link.link_speed && dev_link.link_status' at http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/tree/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c#n899 will always be true and the function will always return EAGAIN.
This actually happens in Azure with CX4-Lx VFs.
>> What I meant was to let the app decide whether it should retry or not,
>> based on the data it gets.
>> Right now, the PMD *prevents* the app to get link state if the link
>> speed is undefined even if the app does not care about link speed.
> In mlx5 this is not the case, we have no one updated and second not -
> there are going together:
> You can see that we have 2 different system calls: 1 to get up\down and
> second to get link speed.
> If link speed doesn't appropriate to the link state it may say that
> something was changed between the calls and the link status we got from
> the first call is not correct anymore.
> In this case, we should call both calls again, that’s what we are doing in
> "nowait" option.
> If the user doesn't want "nowait" option, (means PMD is not allowed to
> take more time for response) he should call again when the callback failed
> in the time and retries manner the user prefers.
Ok, now I understand the logic behind the current behavior: the 2 syscalls being not atomics, you try to detect inconsistencies that way.
But if the link speed is undefined, then the state will never be correctly updated.
I still believe it is unnecessarily heavy-handed: in most networking application I have seen (and I have 2 examples of current shipping networking products), a missing link speed is not critical whereas link being reported as down means no traffic flowing.
Best
ben
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-30 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-27 17:24 Benoît Ganne
2020-03-29 7:00 ` Matan Azrad
2020-03-30 9:55 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-30 10:12 ` Matan Azrad
2020-03-30 12:03 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne) [this message]
2020-03-30 13:44 ` Matan Azrad
2020-03-30 13:53 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-30 16:13 ` Matan Azrad
2020-04-01 10:17 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-04-01 12:46 ` Matan Azrad
2020-04-07 12:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-07 13:41 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-11-19 8:30 ` Matan Azrad
2020-11-19 14:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Raslan Darawsheh
2020-11-19 16:27 ` Raslan Darawsheh
2020-11-19 17:48 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-11-19 18:42 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-20 10:51 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-11-20 13:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-20 14:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-11-22 10:03 ` Raslan Darawsheh
2020-11-22 10:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: allow unknown link speed Raslan Darawsheh
2020-11-22 12:58 ` Raslan Darawsheh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=CH2PR11MB4327BBBE24E9B7AF788ABE36C1CB0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=bganne@cisco.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).