From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0604D95DC for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:19:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2016 07:18:30 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,391,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="41749034" Received: from dwdohert-dpdk.ir.intel.com ([163.33.213.167]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2016 07:18:31 -0800 References: <1449249260-15165-1-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <1449249260-15165-7-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20151204191831.GA20647@roosta.home> <20160203112854.GA13036@bricha3-MOBL3> To: Bruce Richardson From: Declan Doherty Message-ID: <56B219EF.7040105@intel.com> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:17:03 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160203112854.GA13036@bricha3-MOBL3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 6/8] bond: handle slaves with fewer queues than bonding device 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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:19:02 -0000 On 03/02/16 11:28, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:18:34PM -0500, Eric Kinzie wrote: >> On Fri Dec 04 19:36:09 +0100 2015, Andriy Berestovskyy wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> I'm not quite sure if we can support less TX queues on a slave that easy: >>> >>>> queue_id = bond_slave_txqid(internals, i, bd_tx_q->queue_id); >>>> num_tx_slave = rte_eth_tx_burst(slaves[i], queue_id, >>>> slave_bufs[i], slave_nb_pkts[i]); >>> >>> It seems that two different lcores might end up writing to the same >>> slave queue at the same time, isn't it? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andriy >> >> Andriy, I think you're probably right about this. Perhaps it should >> instead refuse to add or refuse to activate a slave with too few >> tx queues. Could probably fix this with another layer of buffering >> so that an lcore with a valid tx queue could pick up the mbufs later, >> but this doesn't seem very appealing. >> >> Eric >> > Hi Eric, Stephen, Declan, > > all patches of the set apart from this one and the next (nos 6 & 7) have no > comments and have been acked. Is there a resolution on these two patches, so they > can be acked and merged? > > Regards, > /Bruce > Hey Bruce, Eric, Stephen, sorry about leaving this patchset hanging around. Can you apply patches 1-5 & patch 8 in this patch set. I've reviewed and acked all of those patches and I believe they are good tof go. I need to give further feedback on patches 6 and 7, as I would like to avoid bring further rte_ring buffering into the bonded device if possible and I think this should be possible but I haven't had time to prototype any alternatives but that shouldn't stop the other patches being applied. Thanks Declan