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 37512A0525 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:38:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A621BFB6; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:38:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com (mail-pg1-f193.google.com [209.85.215.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1901BFAC for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:38:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id 70so1229914pgf.8 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:38:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vWsObGpBgUgxIatyPhfVsSeVHiyi31ZI/Ps6SaFDAX4=; b=v/Cvt4lFBVF851vUhV3UzPgcpjn7HEvNgox1tvIVF9RuWyUJN2xbUtJBE0uLe161A5 8hjSqcMeGsH5LzJlCBqI9RnTHmFr37rbPTqT/yQEyKWIgrfoJG0lGBdbbjCehXQsSCYw GtLI/0Kw7G+NhvcT7lkqOX0gyxYxeJseKIYwmLi2N/OBCqKro0t43Tka1Z+GS6O9wvVs Uo1dNlRfovozxN/fQIspTucWg8RImW/oPQDGrbyNKV92jmhMlYvZUXDQiL7sS+tbyCOV JHDrKigk60jxwYYewt/LJXxyxytFGkbTvJAzerWb3PUmaxK59oYcLQEcu6cDCa8lJiv1 ZH+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vWsObGpBgUgxIatyPhfVsSeVHiyi31ZI/Ps6SaFDAX4=; b=EWylI6LgDRmSM3x0AUaCKommB53iJsjaDhkZ3i+tzgbGFeh7BnDjFnLoq6LHEQhvkz XqU/NGOv2RbFoVzhsqcnooi/YHlZNBprSB1hfg+WM8Qhp3d9lqbBFc4RSp9cw9CZa73R D3au5nMilsv0KeNZhxBZ3wYklzQ1rWj6ISX1QT8q6BTOxH2I032yEhnFdCPJTU9L5ASS JjdIG5Gk4WxQteaKEe3v6GxSpD0DKUDGC+jNq5n/nrQM/n8ig0yfCJscREDKOfDeXLHv DuYFaDm5jNKOHIRH5w1mHbIlqkn4rsjIXceb+W5YTQuBZHXJ7j5rMnUAvh8cI7k8mDyb o1Rg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWLpIsEQ1dUZv6kr/5ZgYoVg8s1YRVKduR1n7iO4etnaTgAmdDq KflcSITKLRWZfUowRc037ea+3g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqytMLO9y16DJ6h2UXhHQTV3sJmbGm0RfWsCym18pEsy489i0BYGFpreGvDU9R2yT5I9a/0DhA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:e20d:: with SMTP id q13mr6694346pgh.6.1582303117426; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 78sm765576pge.58.2020.02.21.08.38.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:38:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:38:28 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Aaron Conole Cc: David Marchand , "Song\, Keesang" , "ktraynor\@redhat.com" , "bluca\@debian.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "dev\@dpdk.org" , "ferruh.yigit\@intel.com" , "bruce.richardson\@intel.com" , "honnappa.nagarahalli\@arm.com" , "drc\@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "stable\@dpdk.org" , "Grimm\, Jon" , "Hollingsworth\, Brent" Message-ID: <20200221083828.4b39a854@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20191202153559.9709-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <2076701.vBoWY3egPC@xps> <5572457.lOV4Wx5bFT@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Extend --lcores to run on cores > RTE_MAX_LCORE 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: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:48:58 -0500 Aaron Conole wrote: > David Marchand writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:19 AM Song, Keesang wrote: > >> > >> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] > > > > Please, get this header removed. > > This is a public mailing list. > > > > > >> Thanks Thomas for bringing this up. > >> I consider this is not a new feature, but rather a fix to address > >> the issue with statically assigned maximum lcore limit on > >> high-density CPU platform such as AMD Epyc. > >> As I see a lot of DPDK adopters are still using LTS 18.11 & 19.11, > >> and they have 1~2 yrs of lifetime left, we like to backport this to > >> LTS 18.11 & 19.11 at least. > > > > It is not a fix. > > > > The use of static arrays is a design choice that goes back to the > > early days in dpdk. > > The addition of --lcores came in after this, but it was introduced for > > a different use case than placing lcores on any physical core. > > And there was no claim that a core > RTE_MAX_LCORE would be usable. > > > > > > When testing on a new hardware, it is normal to observe some limitations. > > Running DPDK on those platforms should be possible: "should be" > > because I do not have access to this hardware and saw neither tests > > reports nor performance numbers. > > Before this patch, the limitation is that on Epyc, cores > > > RTE_MAX_LCORE are not usable. > > > > > > Now, this change is quite constrained. > > If we backport it, I don't expect issues in the main dpdk components > > (based on code review and ovs tests with a RTE_MAX_LCORE set to 16 on > > a 24 cores system). > > There might be issues in some examples or not widely used library > > which uses a physical core id instead of a lcore id. > > > > > > This is the same recurring question "do we allow new features in a > > stable branch?". > > Usually, the answer is 'no'. But we do allow some "new" things to be > backported (pci ids, etc) that might be required to enable older > functionality. Additionally, I'm sure if some feature were required to > mitigate a CVE, we'd rather favor backporting it. > > I guess we could pose a litmus test: > > 1. Is the problem this feature solves so widespread that it needs to > be addressed ASAP? > 2. Is there a known workaround to the problem this is solving? > 3. How intrusive is the feature? > 4. Is it shown to be stable in the mainline (number of fixes, testing, > etc)? > 5. Is it constrained enough that we know we can support it with even > higher priority than other things? > > Probably other questions that will need to be asked. > > And even in that list of question, I'm not sure I'd be able to advocate > backporting this in the upstream branches - it hasn't had much testing. > It's unstable. It's "difficult" to use. It is not widespread that > people have so many cores. The workaround is much simpler than > supporting this (recompile). > > > > > -- > > David Marchand > RTE_MAX_LCORES is exposed in API/ABI to application. Many applications use that to size internal data structures. Having rte_lcore_id() potentially return a larger value would cause out of bounds access (and crash) in that application.