patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Loftus, Ciara" <ciara.loftus@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
	"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/af_xdp: fix support of secondary process
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:33:51 +0000
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB4791718F21F80BCABF089A6A8EA39@PH0PR11MB4791.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210921104524.6cda31b9@hermes.local>

> > > > >
> > > > > Doing basic operations like info_get or get_stats was broken
> > > > > in af_xdp PMD. The info_get would crash because dev->device
> > > > > was NULL in secondary process. Fix this by doing same initialization
> > > > > as af_packet and tap devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > The get_stats would crash because the XDP socket is not open in
> > > > > primary process. As a workaround don't query kernel for dropped
> > > > > packets when called from secondary process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: this does not address the other bug which is that transmitting
> > > > > in secondary process is broken because the send() in tx_kick
> > > > > will fail because XDP socket fd is not valid in secondary process.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Stephen,
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for the delayed reply, I was on vacation.
> > > >
> > > > In the Bugzilla report you suggest we:
> > > > "mark AF_XDP as broken in with primary/secondary
> > > > and return an error in probe in secondary process".
> > > > I agree with this suggestion. However with this patch we still permit
> > > secondary, and just make sure it doesn't crash for get_stats. Did you
> change
> > > your mind?
> > > > Personally, I would prefer to have primary/secondary either working
> 100%
> > > or else not allowed at all by throwing an error during probe. What do you
> > > think? Do you have a reason/use case to permit secondary processes
> despite
> > > some features not being available eg. full stats, tx?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ciara
> > >
> > > There are two cases where secondary is useful even if send/receive can't
> > > work from secondary process.
> > > The pdump and proc-info applications can work with these patches.
> > >
> > > I am using XDP over pdump as an easy way to get packets into the code
> for
> > > testing.
> > >
> > > The flag in the documentation doesn't have a "limited" version.
> > > If you want, will send another patch to disable secondary support.
> >
> > Thanks for explaining. Since there are use cases for secondary, even if the
> functionality is limited, I don't think it should be disabled.
> > Since we can't flag it as 'limited' in the feature matrix, could you please add
> a note about the send/receive limitation in the AF_XDP PMD documentation
> in a v2? There are already a number of limitations listed, which you can add
> to.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ciara
> >
> > >
> > > Supporting secondary, means adding a mechanism to pass the socket
> > > around.
> 
> Looking at this in more detail, and my recommendation is:
> For 21.11 release (and mark it as Fixes so it gets backported). Have the driver
> return -ENOTSUP in secondary process.
> 
> For 22.03 add real secondary support using the rte_mp_msg to pass
> necessary
> state to secondary process. Includes socket (and other memory regions?).
> 
> The pdump and proc-info cases are only useful for developer testing, and
> there are
> other ways to do the same thing.


+1 that sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Ciara

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-23 12:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-03 16:15 [dpdk-stable] " Stephen Hemminger
2021-09-15  8:19 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-09-20 13:23 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Loftus, Ciara
2021-09-20 14:43   ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-09-20 15:09     ` Loftus, Ciara
2021-09-21 17:45       ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-09-23 12:33         ` Loftus, Ciara [this message]
2021-10-05 15:02           ` Ferruh Yigit

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=PH0PR11MB4791718F21F80BCABF089A6A8EA39@PH0PR11MB4791.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=ciara.loftus@intel.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    /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

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git