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 96C6C1C52; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:00:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2016 07:00:52 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,545,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1058850596" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.210.150]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 25 Oct 2016 07:00:50 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:00:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:00:48 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Declan Doherty Cc: Jan Blunck , Eric Kinzie , Ilya Maximets , dev@dpdk.org, Heetae Ahn , Yuanhan Liu , Bernard Iremonger , stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20161025140048.GB10444@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <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> <674cdf6a-7a92-8d1a-4caa-f2582cf1b733@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <674cdf6a-7a92-8d1a-4caa-f2582cf1b733@intel.com> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Revert "bonding: use existing enslaved device queues" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:00:54 -0000 On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote: > 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. > Done. Hopefully consensus on a correct solution for this driver can be reached soon. Regards, /Bruce