From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>,
mtetsuyah@gmail.com, dev@dpdk.org,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] net/null: add empty promiscuous mode functions
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:02:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ced1e1a4-52d2-7821-d3e9-8588557ceac5@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fce2fd1d-8de2-618f-5687-e59e1b4e1fa1@solarflare.com>
On 10/18/2019 12:57 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 10/18/19 2:38 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 10/18/2019 11:13 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:33:59PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2019 2:43 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05:56PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:51 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/19 1:47 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2019 11:37 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/19 9:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2019 4:46 PM, Ciara Power wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Adding promiscuous functions prevents sample applications failing when run
>>>>>>>>>>> on this virtual PMD. The sample applications call promiscuous functions,
>>>>>>>>>>> and fail if this function call returns an error, which occurs when the
>>>>>>>>>>> virtual PMD does not support the promiscuous function being called.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This change will be implemented for all virtual PMDs that currently do not
>>>>>>>>>>> have existing promiscuous functions. Multicast functions will also be
>>>>>>>>>>> added for virtual PMDs to prevent sample application breakages here also.
>>>>>>>>>> +Andrew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the some ethdev APIs returning error code, some sample applications stop
>>>>>>>>>> working with virtual interfaces,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can,
>>>>>>>>>> 1- update sample applications to ignore the errors
>>>>>>>>>> 2- Add dummy dev_ops support to (almost all) virtual PMDs (what this RFC suggests)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1) puts us back to before the ethdev APIs updated status, and this may be wrong
>>>>>>>>>> for the physical devices case, so I am for this RFC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only perhaps we can have some common empty function and keep assigning that one
>>>>>>>>>> to reduce the dummy code, what do you think?
>>>>>>>>> I don't like the idea to have common empty/dummy functions.
>>>>>>>>> If virtual PMD behaves in accordance with enabled promiscuous mode,
>>>>>>>>> it should initialize it properly on init:
>>>>>>>>> eth_dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>>>> If so, if application requires promiscuous mode, attempt to enable will
>>>>>>>>> do nothing. If application requires non-promiscuous mode, disable will
>>>>>>>>> fail and it is good.
>>>>>>>> It is technically correct that we can't disable promiscuous mode in virtual PMDs
>>>>>>>> but I think mainly we don't really care so it returning error may make the
>>>>>>>> applications fail/exit unnecessarily with virtual PMDs.
>>>>>>> If I test virtual PMD promiscuous mode, I would prefer enable/disable
>>>>>>> callback to say me truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If application really does not care, it should be in the application code.
>>>>>> Application can't change this because they may be caring return result for the
>>>>>> physical devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Up until this release these missing dev_ops in virtual PMDs were silently
>>>>>> ignored, now APIs are more strict on this (which is good) but to get close the
>>>>>> previous behavior for virtual PMDs we need to relax on these features (like
>>>>>> saying success on promiscuous disable although it didn't).
>>>>>>
>>>>> The other variable here is how often an app is going to request promiscuous
>>>>> disabling? Given that most ports generally come up in that state anyway,
>>>>> and one needs to request enabling it, surely the disable case is relatively
>>>>> rare? In that case I'd tend to agree with having disabling it returning
>>>>> error for vpmds.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes disabling most probably rare, but still it will generate an error and
>>>> application is failing because of ring PMD promiscuous disable doesn't look
>>>> right to me.
>>> Well, if an app needs promiscuous mode disabled then having it fail is the
>>> right thing to do. If the app doesn't care about promiscuous mode failing,
>>> why is it checking the return value at all?
>>>
>>>> Perhaps application should differentiate between -ENOTSUP error and operation
>>>> fail error, but that looks to me adding unnecessary complexity to the app.
>>>>
>>> Again, does the app care or not? It's probably still better to return
>>> correct info to the app in all cases, and then let the app decide how best
>>> to handle it.
>> My thinking is, application "cares" about the ethdev API return values, but to
>> check/test quickly with null/ring PMD perhaps not really care that much abut
>> promisc/allmuticast support of these PMDs and let's relax these support of
>> virtual PMDs to make life easy.
>>
>> But eventually the main target is to fix sample applications to run with virtual
>> PMDs which has been broken in this release.
>> Both approach works,
>> a) Implement dummy dev_ops to virtual PMDs to report success
>> b) Update ethdev APIs to not call dev_ops if the requested configuration is
>> already satisfied and change virtual PMDs to report promisc & allmulticast
>> enabled by default. (disable still will have same issue)
>>
>> Is the consensus option (b)?
>
> Yes.
>
>> btw, the problem exists in high level for the offload support, if the
>> application is requesting a specific offload support it fails to run with the
>> virtual PMDs since virtual PMDs doesn't support any offloads. Indeed I have same
>> suggestion for this case too, relax the virtual PMD by claiming it supports all
>> offloads. Because at least for me when I use those virtual PMDs I don't really
>> would like to test offloads or the procmisc/allmulticast features ...
>
> It looks like I simply don't understand virtual PMDs usacase.
I guess it changes for virtual PMD, bonding, failsafe, vhost, etc has more
production use cases, null I would assume mostly used for debugging.
>
>>>> With a common function shared by all PMDs for both promisc and allmuticast will
>>>> add a little code and an easier solution.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-18 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-16 15:46 Ciara Power
2019-10-16 18:07 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-17 10:37 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-17 10:47 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-17 10:51 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-17 11:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-17 13:43 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-10-17 15:33 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-18 8:18 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-18 8:30 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-18 10:13 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-10-18 11:38 ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-10-18 11:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-18 13:02 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2019-10-18 13:12 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-10-18 13:38 ` 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=ced1e1a4-52d2-7821-d3e9-8588557ceac5@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=ciara.power@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mtetsuyah@gmail.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).