From: "Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
To: Shally Verma <shallyv@marvell.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
Ashish Gupta <ashishg@marvell.com>,
"Daly, Lee" <lee.daly@intel.com>, Sunila Sahu <ssahu@marvell.com>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
"Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] doc/compress: clarify error handling on data-plane
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 14:00:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B4358975602D@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR1801MB205277B0BD0BE30955956136AD320@BN6PR1801MB2052.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
HI Shally,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shally Verma [mailto:shallyv@marvell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 1:41 PM
> To: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Ashish Gupta <ashishg@marvell.com>; Daly, Lee <lee.daly@intel.com>; Sunila
> Sahu <ssahu@marvell.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] doc/compress: clarify error handling on data-plane
>
> Hi Fiona
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:54 PM
> > To: Shally Verma <shallyv@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Ashish Gupta <ashishg@marvell.com>; Daly, Lee
> > <lee.daly@intel.com>; Sunila Sahu <ssahu@marvell.com>; stable@dpdk.org;
> > Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] doc/compress: clarify error handling on data-plane
> >
> > Hi Shally
> >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +There are some exceptions whereby errors can occur on the
> > > > ``enqueue``.
> > > > > > +For any error which can occur in a production environment and
> > > > > > +can be successful after a retry with the same op the PMD may
> > > > > > +return the error on the enqueue.
> > > > > This statement looks bit confusing.
> > > > > Seems like we are trying to add a description regarding op status
> > > > > check even after the enqueue call unlike current scenario, where
> > > > > app only check for it after dequeue?
> > > > [Fiona] The line following this explains that there is no need to
> > > > check op.status in this case.
> > > > Maybe it's not obvious that the application SHOULD check that all
> > > > ops are enqueued?
> > > > I can reword as:
> > > > The application should always check the value returned by the enqueue.
> > > > If less than the full burst is enqueued there's no need for the
> > > > application to check op.status of any or every op - it can simply
> > > > retry from the return
> > > > value+1 in a later enqueue and expect success.
> > > >
> > > I agree to purpose of patch but have these confusions when I read
> > description above:
> > >
> > > My understand is , if op status is INVALID_ARGS or any ERROR which is
> > > permanent in nature, Then nb_enqd return will be less than actually
> > passed.
> > [Fiona] True.
> >
> > > Regardless of whatever reason, if any time app gets nb_enqd < actually
> > > passed, then app should check status of nb_enqd + 1th op
> > [Fiona]. No, that's exactly what I was proposing to avoid.
> >
> > > to find exact cause of failure and then either attempt re-enqueue Or
> > > correct op preparation or take any other appropriate action.
> > [Fiona] I was proposing to constrain PMDs to only return a subset of errors
> > on the enqueue, so apps could be optimised.
> > But if you think it's not possible for PMDs to comply with it, then yes, apps
> > would always have to check status of nb_enqd + 1th op, and fork depending
> > on the status.
> > Is this the case?
> > If so, much of this patch is unnecessary and I'll send a simplified v3 as almost
> > any status can be returned anywhere.
> >
> [Shally] Okay. I seem to understand it now.
> Purpose seem reasonable just a simpler rephrase would help.
> It will be easier for me to further feedback on 1st v2 patch sent. So will send it another email.
[Fiona] ok, will look for that.
> > > Also, STATUS_ERROR is very generic, it can be when queue is full in
> > > which case app can re-attempt an enqueue of same op
> > OR
> > > It can also indicate any irrecoverable error on enqueue, in which app
> > > just probably has to reset everything. For such kind of case, it might
> > > not be possible for PMD design to even push it into completion queue
> > > for an app to dequeue . I would suggest add another status code type
> > > which reflect permanent error condition i.e. irrecoverable error code
> > > which tells an app to perform PMD qp reset/re-init to recover and simplify
> > description just to state an expected APP behavior to avoid infinite loop
> > condition.
> > > It is then an app choice whether or not to check for op status for
> > > error after enqueue depending on whether its running in production
> > environment or dev environment.
> > [Fiona] I wouldn't expect ERROR in a queue full case. I'd see ERROR as the
> > catch-all when some other specific status isn't appropriate. If you think
> > there's a need for another specific status then best send an API patch
> > proposing it. This patch is only documenting the existing set.
>
> [Shally] Sorry, I missed. STATUS_NOT_PROCESSED can be indication of queue_full.
> STATUS_ERROR on dequeue = any catch-all error case
> STATUS_ERROR on enqueue = any irrecoverable error on op. app should not attempt same op or may be
> reset queue pair or PMD.
>
> Is this interpretation correct?
[Fiona] Yes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-08 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-08 16:14 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] " Fiona Trahe
2019-04-09 14:55 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Fiona Trahe
2019-04-18 12:12 ` Shally Verma
2019-04-30 16:33 ` Trahe, Fiona
2019-05-07 17:14 ` Shally Verma
2019-05-07 18:24 ` Trahe, Fiona
2019-05-08 12:41 ` Shally Verma
2019-05-08 14:00 ` Trahe, Fiona [this message]
2019-05-09 8:58 ` Akhil Goyal
2019-05-09 10:44 ` Shally Verma
2019-05-14 15:29 ` Trahe, Fiona
2019-05-14 15:37 ` Shally Verma
2019-05-15 11:16 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3] " Fiona Trahe
2019-05-15 11:43 ` Jozwiak, TomaszX
2019-05-15 12:03 ` Shally Verma
2019-06-19 14:57 ` Akhil Goyal
2019-04-16 15:02 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Akhil Goyal
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=348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B4358975602D@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=fiona.trahe@intel.com \
--cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=ashishg@marvell.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=lee.daly@intel.com \
--cc=shallyv@marvell.com \
--cc=ssahu@marvell.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/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).