From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:20:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR0502MB37975F3FE8DA17DDBA2A0A06D2E80@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180118165436.GD1622@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
Hi Neil
From: Neil Horman, Thursday, January 18, 2018 6:55 PM
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:00:23PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Hi Neil
> >
> > From: Neil Horman, Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:10 PM
> > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 05:01:10PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:00 PM
> > > > > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Thomas
> > > > > Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet
> > > > > <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>;
> > > > > dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:05:42PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018
> > > > > > 1:24 PM
> > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:11
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018
> > > > > > > > > > 8:44 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15,
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2018
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1:45 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Friday, January 12,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018 2:02 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Thursday,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > January 11, 2018
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Wednesday,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > January 10,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is good to see that now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scanning/updating rte_eth_dev_data[]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is lock protected, but it might be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not very plausible to protect both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data[] and next_owner_id using the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same lock.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess you mean to the owner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[port_id].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The next_owner_id is read by ownership
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > APIs(for owner validation), so it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes sense to use the same lock.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, why not?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well to me next_owner_id and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[] are not directly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may create new owner_id but it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't mean you would update
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_data[]
> > > immediately.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And visa-versa - you might just want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update rte_eth_dev_data[].name or
> .owner_id.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not very good coding practice to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use same lock for non-related data structures.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see the relation like next:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the ownership mechanism
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > synchronization is in ethdev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responsibility, we must protect against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user mistakes as much as we can by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using the same lock.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, if user try to set by invalid owner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (exactly the ID which currently is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allocated) we can protect on it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, not sure why you can't do same checking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with different lock or atomic variable?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The set ownership API is protected by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ownership lock and checks the owner ID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > validity By reading the next
> > > owner ID.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the owner ID allocation and set API should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the same atomic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure but all you are doing for checking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > validity, is check that owner_id > 0 &&&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > owner_id < next_ownwe_id,
> > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you don't allow owner_id overlap (16/3248
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bits) you can safely do same check with just
> > > atomic_get(&next_owner_id).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It will not protect it, scenario:
> > > > > > > > > > > > - current next_id is X.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - call set ownership of port A with owner id X by
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread 0(by user
> > > > > > > > > mistake).
> > > > > > > > > > > > - context switch
> > > > > > > > > > > > - allocate new id by thread 1 and get X and change
> > > > > > > > > > > > next_id to
> > > > > > > > > > > > X+1
> > > > > > > > > > > atomically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - context switch
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Thread 0 validate X by atomic_read and succeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > to take
> > > > > > > ownership.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - The system loosed the port(or will be managed by
> > > > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > entities) -
> > > > > > > > > crash.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, and how using lock will protect you with such scenario?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The owner set API validation by thread 0 should fail
> > > > > > > > > > because the owner
> > > > > > > > > validation is included in the protected section.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then your validation function would fail even if you'll
> > > > > > > > > use atomic ops instead of lock.
> > > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > > > With atomic this specific scenario will cause the validation to
> pass.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you explain to me how?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(uint16_t owner_id) {
> > > > > > > int32_t cur_owner_id =
> > > > > > > RTE_MIN(rte_atomic32_get(next_owner_id),
> > > > > > > UINT16_MAX);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if (owner_id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER || owner >
> > > > > > > cur_owner_id) {
> > > > > > > RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Invalid owner_id=%d.\n",
> owner_id);
> > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > return 1;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let say your next_owne_id==X, and you invoke
> > > > > > > rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(owner_id=X+1) - it would fail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Explanation:
> > > > > > The scenario with locks:
> > > > > > next_owner_id = X.
> > > > > > Thread 0 call to set API(with invalid owner Y=X) and take lock.
> > > > > > Context switch.
> > > > > > Thread 1 call to owner_new and stuck in the lock.
> > > > > > Context switch.
> > > > > > Thread 0 does owner id validation and failed(Y>=X) - unlock
> > > > > > the lock and
> > > return failure to the user.
> > > > > > Context switch.
> > > > > > Thread 1 take the lock and update X to X+1, then, unlock the lock.
> > > > > > Everything is OK!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same scenario with atomics:
> > > > > > next_owner_id = X.
> > > > > > Thread 0 call to set API(with invalid owner Y=X) and take lock.
> > > > > > Context switch.
> > > > > > Thread 1 call to owner_new and change X to X+1(atomically).
> > > > > > Context switch.
> > > > > > Thread 0 does owner id validation and success(Y<(atomic)X+1) -
> > > > > > unlock
> > > the lock and return success to the user.
> > > > > > Problem!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Matan is correct here, there is no way to preform parallel set
> > > > > operations using just and atomic variable here, because multiple
> > > > > reads of next_owner_id need to be preformed while it is stable.
> > > > > That is to say rte_eth_next_owner_id must be compared to
> > > > > RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER and owner_id in
> rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id.
> > > If
> > > > > you were to only use an atomic_read on such a variable, it could
> > > > > be incremented by the owner_new function between the checks and
> > > > > an invalid owner value could become valid because a third
> > > > > thread incremented the next value. The state of next_owner_id
> > > > > must be kept stable during any validity checks
> > > >
> > > > It could still be incremented between the checks - if let say
> > > > different thread will invoke new_onwer_id, grab the lock update
> > > > counter, release the lock - all that before the check.
> > > I don't see how all of the contents of rte_eth_dev_owner_set is
> > > protected under rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock, as is
> rte_eth_dev_owner_new.
> > > Next_owner might increment between another threads calls to
> > > owner_new and owner_set, but that will just cause a transition from
> > > an ownership id being valid to invalid, and thats ok, as long as
> > > there is consistency in the model that enforces a single valid owner
> > > at a time (in that case the subsequent caller to owner_new).
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understand you, but see:
> > we can't protect all of the user mistakes(using the wrong owner id).
> > But we are doing the maximum for it.
> >
> Yeah, my writing was atrocious, apologies. All I meant to say was that the
> locking you have is ok, in that it maintains a steady state for the data being
> read during the period its being read. The fact that a given set operation may
> fail because someone else created an ownership record is an artifact of the
> api, not a bug in its implementation. I think we're basically in agreement on
> the semantics here, but this goes to my argument about complexity (more
> below).
>
> >
> > > Though this confusion does underscore my assertion I think that this
> > > API is overly complicated
> > >
> >
> > I really don't think it is complicated. - just take ownership of a port(by
> owner id allocation and set APIs) and manage the port as you want.
> >
> But thats not all. The determination of success or failure in claiming
> ownership is largely dependent on the behavior of other threads actions, not
> a function of the state of the system at the moment ownership is requested.
> That is to say, if you have N threads, and they all create ownership objects
> identified as X, x+1, X+2...X+N, only the thread with id X+N will be able to
> claim ownership of any port, because they all will have incremented the
> shared nex_id variable.
Why? Each one will get its owner id according to some order(The critical section is protected by spinlock).
> Determination of ownership by the programmer will
> have to be done via debugging, and errors will likely be transient dependent
> on the order in which threads execute (subject to scheduling jitter).
>
Yes.
> Rather than making ownership success dependent on any data contained
> within the ownership record, ownership should be entirely dependent on
> the state of port ownership at the time that it was requested. That is to say,
> port ownership should succede if and only if the port is unowned at the time
> that a given thread requets ownership.
Yes.
> Any ancilliary data regarding which
> context owns the port should be exactly that, ancilliary, and have no impact
> on weather or not the port ownership request succedes.
>
Yes, I understand what you say - there is no deterministic state for ownership set success.
Actually I think it will be very hard to arrive to determination in DPDK regarding port ownership when multi-thread is in the game,
Especially it depend in a lot of DPDK entities implementation..
But the current non-deterministic approach makes good order in the game.
> Regards
> Neil
>
> > > Neil
> >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-18 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 212+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-28 11:57 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] ethdev: Port ownership Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] ethdev: free a port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2017-11-30 12:36 ` Neil Horman
2017-11-30 13:24 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-11-30 14:30 ` Matan Azrad
2017-11-30 15:09 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-11-30 15:43 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-01 12:09 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-03 8:04 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-03 11:10 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-03 13:46 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-04 16:01 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-04 18:10 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-04 22:30 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-05 6:08 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-05 10:05 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-08 11:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-08 12:31 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-21 17:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-21 17:43 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-21 19:37 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-21 20:14 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-21 21:57 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-22 14:26 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-23 22:36 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-29 16:56 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-05 19:26 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-08 11:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-05 11:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 11:44 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 11:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-05 14:56 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-05 14:57 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 11:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-05 15:13 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 15:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-11-28 11:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/5] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/5] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] ethdev: " Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-10 13:36 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-10 16:58 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-11 12:40 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-11 14:51 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-12 0:02 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-12 7:24 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-15 11:45 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-15 13:09 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-15 18:43 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-16 8:04 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-16 19:11 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-16 20:32 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 11:24 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-17 12:05 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 12:54 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-17 13:10 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 16:52 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-17 18:02 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 20:34 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 14:17 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 14:26 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 14:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 14:45 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 14:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 15:00 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 14:00 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-17 17:01 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 13:10 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 14:00 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:54 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 17:20 ` Matan Azrad [this message]
2018-01-18 18:41 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 20:21 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 1:41 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 7:14 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 9:30 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-01-19 10:44 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 13:30 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 13:57 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 14:13 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 15:27 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 17:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 17:43 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 18:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 19:47 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 20:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 22:52 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-20 3:38 ` Tuxdriver
2018-01-20 12:54 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-20 14:02 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:55 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 13:52 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 16:27 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-17 17:58 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 13:20 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 13:57 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 14:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 14:32 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 17:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 17:37 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 18:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-21 22:12 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/6] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:58 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 10:32 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 11:16 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 11:35 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 11:39 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 12:30 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 13:30 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 13:55 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 14:21 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 14:42 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-16 5:53 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-16 8:15 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 0:46 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-17 8:51 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 0:53 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/7] Port ownership and syncronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/7] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 17:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:38 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-03-05 11:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-05 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
2018-03-05 15:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-05 15:12 ` Matan Azrad
2018-03-27 22:37 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-28 12:07 ` Matan Azrad
2018-03-30 10:39 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-19 11:07 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-25 12:16 ` Matan Azrad
2018-04-25 12:30 ` Ori Kam
2018-04-25 12:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-25 14:01 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 17:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:40 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-20 16:48 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 17:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/7] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 21:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/7] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 20:43 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-18 20:52 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 21:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:47 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/7] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 12:37 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-19 12:51 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 13:08 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-19 13:35 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 15:00 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-20 18:14 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 10:17 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-22 11:22 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 12:28 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-22 13:22 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 20:48 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 8:54 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-23 12:56 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-23 14:30 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-25 9:36 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-25 10:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 11:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-25 11:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 11:55 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 13:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 14:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-23 15:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 15:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 17:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-23 21:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-24 8:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-24 18:30 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-25 10:55 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 11:09 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-25 11:27 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-23 14:43 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/7] Port ownership and syncronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/7] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/7] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-21 20:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-01-21 20:46 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/7] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/7] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 6/7] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] Port ownership and synchronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-25 1:47 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-25 8:30 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-26 0:50 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-29 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] Port ownership and synchronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-31 19:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 14:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/7] Port ownership and syncronization 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=AM6PR0502MB37975F3FE8DA17DDBA2A0A06D2E80@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
--to=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).