From: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
"Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] bonding: take queue spinlock in rx/tx burst functions
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:39:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C224D2A875@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170216091330.GC92400@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi Ferruh,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:14 AM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Iremonger, Bernard
> <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] bonding: take queue spinlock in rx/tx
> burst functions
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06:01:45PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 6/16/2016 7:38 PM, thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com (Thomas Monjalon)
> wrote:
> > > 2016-06-16 16:41, Iremonger, Bernard:
> > >> Hi Thomas,
> > >> <snip>
> > >>> 2016-06-16 15:32, Bruce Richardson:
> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 01:28:08PM +0100, Iremonger, Bernard
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Why does this particular PMD need spinlocks when doing RX and
> > >>>>>> TX, while other device types do not? How is adding/removing
> > >>>>>> devices from a bonded device different to other control
> > >>>>>> operations that can be done on physical PMDs? Is this not
> > >>>>>> similar to say bringing down or hotplugging out a physical port
> > >>>>>> just before an RX or TX
> > >>> operation takes place?
> > >>>>>> For all other PMDs we rely on the app to synchronise control
> > >>>>>> and data plane operation - why not here?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> /Bruce
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This issue arose during VM live migration testing.
> > >>>>> For VM live migration it is necessary (while traffic is running)
> > >>>>> to be able to
> > >>> remove a bonded slave device, stop it, close it and detach it.
> > >>>>> It a slave device is removed from a bonded device while traffic
> > >>>>> is running
> > >>> a segmentation fault may occur in the rx/tx burst function. The
> > >>> spinlock has been added to prevent this occurring.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The bonding device already uses a spinlock to synchronise
> > >>>>> between the
> > >>> add and remove functionality and the
> > >>> slave_link_status_change_monitor code.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Previously testpmd did not allow, stop, close or detach of PMD
> > >>>>> while traffic was running. Testpmd has been modified with the
> > >>>>> following patchset
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/13472/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It now allows stop, close and detach of a PMD provided in it is
> > >>>>> not
> > >>> forwarding and is not a slave of bonded PMD.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> I will admit to not being fully convinced, but if nobody else has
> > >>>> any serious objections, and since this patch has been reviewed
> > >>>> and acked, I'm ok to merge it in. I'll do so shortly.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please hold on.
> > >>> Seeing locks introduced in the Rx/Tx path is an alert.
> > >>> We clearly need a design document to explain where locks can be
> > >>> used and what are the responsibility of the control plane.
> > >>> If everybody agrees in this document that DPDK can have some locks
> > >>> in the fast path, then OK to merge it.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I would say NACK for 16.07 and maybe postpone to 16.11.
> > >>
> > >> Looking at the documentation for the bonding PMD.
> > >>
> > >>
> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/link_bonding_poll_mode_drv_li
> > >> b.html
> > >>
> > >> In section 10.2 it states the following:
> > >>
> > >> Bonded devices support the dynamical addition and removal of slave
> devices using the rte_eth_bond_slave_add / rte_eth_bond_slave_remove
> APIs.
> > >>
> > >> If a slave device is added or removed while traffic is running, there is the
> possibility of a segmentation fault in the rx/tx burst functions. This is most
> likely to occur in the round robin bonding mode.
> > >>
> > >> This patch set fixes what appears to be a bug in the bonding PMD.
> > >
> > > It can be fixed by removing this statement in the doc.
> > >
> > > One of the design principle of DPDK is to avoid locks.
> > >
> > >> Performance measurements have been made with this patch set
> applied and without the patches applied using 64 byte packets.
> > >>
> > >> With the patches applied the following drop in performance was
> observed:
> > >>
> > >> % drop for fwd+io: 0.16%
> > >> % drop for fwd+mac: 0.39%
> > >>
> > >> This patch set has been reviewed and ack'ed, so I think it should
> > >> be applied in 16.07
> > >
> > > I understand your point of view and I gave mine.
> > > Now we need more opinions from others.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > These patches are sitting in the patchwork for a long time. Discussion
> > never concluded and patches kept deferred each release.
> >
> > I think we should give a decision about them:
> >
> > 1- We can merge them in this release, they are fixing a valid problem,
> > and patches are already acked.
> >
> > 2- We can reject them, if not having them for more than six months not
> > caused a problem, perhaps they are not really that required. And if
> > somebody needs them in the future, we can resurrect them from
> patchwork.
> >
> > I vote for option 2, any comments?
> >
> +1 on option 2. There are obviously not badly needed if nobody is asking
> for them for over six months.
>
> /Bruce
I am ok with option 2, provided they can be retrieved if needed.
Regards,
Bernard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-16 11:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-05 15:14 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] bonding: locks Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-05 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] bonding: replace spinlock with read/write lock Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-05 17:12 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-05-06 10:32 ` Declan Doherty
2016-05-06 15:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-05-13 17:10 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-13 17:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-26 16:24 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-05-05 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] bonding: add read/write lock to rx/tx burst functions Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-05 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/5] bonding: remove memcopy of slaves from rx/tx burst function Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-05 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/5] bonding: add read/write lock to stop function Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-05 15:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] bonding: add read/write lock to the link_update function Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] bonding: locks Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] bonding: add spinlock to rx and tx queues Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-10 18:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-12 17:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] bonding: locks Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-12 17:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] bonding: add spinlock to rx and tx queues Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-12 17:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] bonding: grab queue spinlocks in slave add and remove Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-12 17:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] bonding: take queue spinlock in rx/tx burst functions Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-13 9:18 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-06-13 12:28 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-06-16 14:32 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-06-16 15:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-06-16 16:41 ` Iremonger, Bernard
2016-06-16 18:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-15 18:01 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-02-16 9:13 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-16 11:39 ` Iremonger, Bernard [this message]
2017-02-20 11:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-09-09 11:29 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-06-12 17:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] bonding: remove memcpy from " Bernard Iremonger
2016-09-11 12:39 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] bonding: grab queue spinlocks in slave add and remove Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-10 18:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/6] bonding: take queue spinlock in rx/tx burst functions Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-10 18:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] bonding: add spinlock to stop function Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] bonding: add spinlock to link update function Bernard Iremonger
2016-05-26 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] bonding: remove memcpy from burst functions Bernard Iremonger
2016-06-10 18:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-06-10 14:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] bonding: locks Bruce Richardson
2016-06-10 18:24 ` Iremonger, Bernard
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=8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C224D2A875@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.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).