From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Chas Williams <chas3@att.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/vmxnet3: keep link state consistent
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:23:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba372000-a18a-a52c-0907-17ec0f98e018@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4064739.HSmrWIpKYf@xps>
On 4/17/2018 9:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 17/04/2018 21:25, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 4/5/2018 4:01 PM, Chas Williams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>>> 20/03/2018 15:12, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 3/18/2018 1:45 AM, Chas Williams wrote:
>>>>>> From: Chas Williams <chas3@att.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vmxnet3 never attempts link speed negotiation. As a virtual device
>>>>>> the link speed is vague at best. However, it is important for certain
>>>>>> applications, like bonding, to see a consistent link_status. 802.3ad
>>>>>> requires that only links of the same cost (link speed) be enslaved.
>>>>>> Keeping the link status consistent in vmxnet3 avoids races with bonding
>>>>>> enslavement.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the issue.
>>>> Are you sure it is not an issue in bonding?
>>>
>>> 802.3ad "requires" you to bond together links of the same speed and duplex. The
>>> primary reason for this (or so I gather) is to ensure that the
>>> spanning-tree cost for
>>> each port is the same. If you fail from one link to another, you
>>> don't want a spanning
>>> tree reconfiguration.
>>>
>>> The problem exists in general for most of the PMDs -- see
>>> https://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/094696.html
>>>
>>> The problem is more vexing for AUTONEG and bonding. I am still thinking about
>>> that. You don't know until you go to activate the slave and bonding
>>> only makes its
>>> check during the setup phase. So for virtual adapters and bonding, not using
>>> AUTONEG makes more sense because it is just easier to handle.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> About the right value to set for virtual PMDs, I don't know, both are fakes.
>>>> I thought that AUTONEG better convey the vague link speed you describe.
>>>
>>> It's not vague. There is no negotiation of any sort. The link speed
>>> (and therefore cost)
>>> of the link is fixed. While the particular rate you get from the
>>> adapter depends
>>> on a number of factors, the link speed isn't going to change. The
>>> adapter is not
>>> going to change the link speed from 10G to 1G or change from full duplex to half
>>> duplex.
>>
>> Hi Chas, Thomas,
>>
>> What is the latest status of this patch? Is it agreed to convert link_autoneg to
>> ETH_LINK_FIXED for following PMDs [1]?
>>
>> [1]
>> pcap
>> softnic
>> vmxnet3
>
> Yes, OK for ETH_LINK_FIXED.
Thanks for clarification.
Hi Chas,
Do you prefer to re-make the patch to cover them all, or should I get this one
as start, which one do you prefer?
Thanks,
ferruh
>
>
>>>>>> Author: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>>>>>> Date: Fri Jan 5 18:38:55 2018 +0100
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 1e3a958f40b3 ("ethdev: fix link autonegotiation value")
>>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>
>>>>> There were a few more PMDs [1] they have been updated from FIXED to AUTONEG with
>>>>> above commit, do you think should we update them back to FIXED as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> pcap
>>>>> softnic
>>>>> vmxnet3
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they all can be fixed/LINK_FIXED :) I guess
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-18 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-18 1:45 [dpdk-dev] " Chas Williams
2018-03-20 14:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-20 14:42 ` Chas Williams
2018-04-05 10:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-05 15:01 ` Chas Williams
2018-04-17 19:25 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-17 20:24 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-18 16:23 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2018-04-18 16:59 ` Yong Wang
2018-04-20 0:10 ` 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=ba372000-a18a-a52c-0907-17ec0f98e018@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=3chas3@gmail.com \
--cc=chas3@att.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--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).