From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE2568D9; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:54:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2016 06:54:31 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,545,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="23502237" Received: from dwdohert-dpdk.ir.intel.com ([163.33.210.152]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2016 06:54:29 -0700 To: Bruce Richardson 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> <20161025125750.GB57276@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: Declan Doherty Message-ID: <674cdf6a-7a92-8d1a-4caa-f2582cf1b733@intel.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:48:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161025125750.GB57276@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Revert "bonding: use existing enslaved device queues" X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:54:40 -0000 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. Declan