From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4C15F2F for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:46:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 18-v6so3889448wml.2 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=uOntZQobT0TYzmje1ECXnOtCFS3CzxhrQ8iuTT+0J0A=; b=e7no0BJH6RuJVRA9j3GH8UY7T8EvP23wyWeJcXC2rT5rkpIYK8rKzR99c5bDmCpuII Xc4QkU7lfEq1RmOyLDiRkc8qo9D3ci6FqkB/4pa2YlESO03C5DsQas6RcNni5lhu3v3U XaCm494Ds2XMsDNxP+yRuUsD/sb+rlT4/XerQ55ZpwLZypK51ABmyJeyKb2gG5cj+Ndz xTpF+iShBi3CwrZeeQdviwPuillVVFkMNsxME2mfu7eMCdLFfx3lcKx6GhWUs2DmgSAJ YafwZs/SrToNuqOWTA2d6Oih1jU0kxaTLbF6UW49T9zVxDCXF9n7H3AluqhrNKLPqsPl 1Xmg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2mi4bJGpb6XZKKLUEifiA7KBQorOKYM+KDuEltoElluIsu1wYK o0LQGUquIYULEQqlLF8df5U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJr/b+YbM7aQkYOmfoGdPRjaYDqIQU+af14GkSXfvFNRJXPnbw+v4rSmnwsr0tCU5KtHM6M0w== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:96c1:: with SMTP id y184-v6mr3004921wmd.156.1527868007844; Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a00:23c5:be9a:5200:ce4c:82c0:d567:ecbb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 141-v6sm3507709wmf.35.2018.06.01.08.46.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1527868005.6997.73.camel@debian.org> From: Luca Boccassi To: Maxime Coquelin , Tomasz Kulasek Cc: Dariusz Stojaczyk , Jianfeng Tan , dpdk stable Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 16:46:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1527067207.6997.3.camel@debian.org> References: <20180501104509.17238-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <20180501104509.17238-7-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <3003cecb-1c1d-c21b-8a41-0639bdd01511@redhat.com> <1527067207.6997.3.camel@debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1+deb9u1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] patch 'vhost: fix device cleanup at stop' has been queued to LTS release 16.11.7 X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 15:46:48 -0000 On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 10:20 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 09:35 +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > Hi Luca, Tomasz, > >=20 > > While testing 16.11 branch, I noticed vhost lib is broken. > > The symptoms is no packets are sent or received. > >=20 > > I ran a bisect which points to this commit. Reverting it solves the > > issue. > >=20 > > Debugging a bit more, I can see that the callfd is valid when no > > packets > > are being transmitted. I think the problem is that the callfd is > > received after the kickfd: > >=20 > > VHOST_CONFIG: read message VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_KICK > > VHOST_CONFIG: vring kick idx:0 file:16 > > VHOST_CONFIG: virtio is not ready for processing. > > VHOST_CONFIG: read message VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_CALL > > VHOST_CONFIG: vring call idx:0 file:17 > >=20 > > And in 16.11, the new_device callback is called from the > > VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_KICK handling, only if the device is ready. > > This is different in later versions, where the new_device callback > > can be called for any request. > >=20 > > The right way to fix this would be to move the new_device callback > > call > > for any request, but I think there is a non-negligible risk of > > regression so we'd need to be careful doing that. > >=20 > > Other option is to simply revert Tomasz patch in 16.11 LTS. This is > > not > > ideal because Tomasz patch is fixing a real issue (new_device get > > called > > with an outdated/invalid callfd). However, I don't know if it has > > real > > consequences, as the callfd is updated right after. > >=20 > > Except if someone face real issue due to callfd being updated after > > new_device is called, then my suggestion would be to revert Tomasz > > patch > > as we are at 6 months of 16.11 EOL. > >=20 > > Luca, Tomasz, what's your take on this? > >=20 > > Regards, > > Maxime >=20 > I'm fine with your suggestion of reverting the patch, as it seems > less > risky. I also can easily confirm the regression - given no objection from Tomasz, I'll revert. --=20 Kind regards, Luca Boccassi