patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Pai G, Sunil" <sunil.pai.g@intel.com>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>,
	Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
	"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"Stokes, Ian" <ian.stokes@intel.com>,
	"Govindharajan, Hariprasad" <hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com>,
	"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	James Page <james.page@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:28:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB381497262115C84B9C879E9EBD639@BYAPR11MB3814.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAATJJ0KnYvkTWiF+DGPqLpEj1Rgteg18nd2Syq2m7XgCT6vx6w@mail.gmail.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 1:15 PM
> To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Luca Boccassi
> <bluca@debian.org>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Pai
> G, Sunil <sunil.pai.g@intel.com>; Stokes, Ian <ian.stokes@intel.com>;
> Govindharajan, Hariprasad <hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; James Page
> <james.page@canonical.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 19.11.4 patches review and test
> 
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:51 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/23/21 7:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 22/03/2021 15:27, Christian Ehrhardt:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >>> 22/03/2021 12:59, Luca Boccassi:
> > >>>> On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 11:41 +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:49:54AM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:25 PM Pai G, Sunil
> <sunil.pai.g@intel.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi Christian, Ilya
> > >>>>>>> From: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>
> > >>>>>>>> On 3/18/21 2:36 PM, Pai G, Sunil wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Hey Christian,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> <snipped>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> back  in 19.11.4 these DPDK changes were not picked up as
> > >>>>>>>>>> they have broken builds as discussed here.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Later on the communication was that all this works fine now
> > >>>>>>>>>> and thereby Luca has "reverted the reverts" in 19.11.6 [1].
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> But today we were made aware that still no OVS 2.13 builds
> > >>>>>>>>>> against a DPDK that has those changes.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Not 2.13.1 as we have it in Ubuntu nor (if it needs some
> > >>>>>>>>>> OVS changes
> > >>>>>>>>>> backported) the recent 2.13.3 does build.
> > >>>>>>>>>> They still fail with the very same issue I reported [2] back
> then.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately I have just released 19.11.7 so I can't
> > >>>>>>>>>> revert them there - but OTOH reverting and counter
> > >>>>>>>>>> reverting every other release seems wrong anyway.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It is wrong indeed, but the main question here is why these
> > >>>>>>>> patches was backported to stable release in a first place?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Looking at these patches, they are not actual bug fixes but
> > >>>>>>>> more like "nice to have" features that additionally breaks the
> way application links with DPDK.
> > >>>>>>>> Stuff like that should not be acceptable to the stable
> > >>>>>>>> release without a strong justification or, at least, testing with
> actual applications.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I agree, but TBH IIRC these changes were initially by OVS
> > >>>>>> people :-) One could chase down the old talks between Luca and
> > >>>>>> the requesters, but I don't think that gains us that much.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Since we already have a revert of revert, revert of revert of
> > >>>>>>>> revert doesn't seem so bad.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As long as we don't extend this series, yeah
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I wanted to ask if there is a set of patches that OVS would
> > >>>>>>>>>> need to backport to 2.13.x to make this work?
> > >>>>>>>>>> If they could be identified and prepared Distros could use
> > >>>>>>>>>> them on
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2.13.3 asap and 2.13.4 could officially release them for OVS
> later on.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> But for that we'd need a hint which OVS changes that would
> need to be.
> > >>>>>>>>>> All I know atm is from the testing reports on DPDK it seems
> > >>>>>>>>>> that OVS
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2.14.3 and 2.15 are happy with the new DPDK code.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you have pointers on what 2.13.3 would need to get
> > >>>>>>>>>> backported to work again in regard to this build issue.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You would need to use partial contents from patch :
> > >>>>>>>>>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/160814
> > >>>>>>>>> 2365-
> > >>>>>>>> 26215
> > >>>>>>>>> -1-git-send-email-ian.stokes@intel.com/
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> If you'd like me to send patches which would work with 2.13,
> > >>>>>>>>> 2.14, I'm ok with that too.[keeping only those parts from
> > >>>>>>>>> patch which fixes the issue
> > >>>>>>>> you see.] But we must ensure it doesn’t cause problems for
> OVS too.
> > >>>>>>>>> Your thoughts Ilya ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We had more fixes on top of this particular patch and I'd
> > >>>>>>>> like to not cherry- pick and re-check all of this again.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I agree, we had more fixes on top of this. It would be risky to
> cherry-pick.
> > >>>>>>> So it might be a better option to revert.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I agree, as far as I assessed the situation it would mean the
> > >>>>>> revert of the following list.
> > >>>>>> And since that is a lot of "reverts" in the string, to be clear
> > >>>>>> it means that those original changes would not be present
> anymore in 19.11.x.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> f49248a990 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: prevent
> overlinking""
> > >>>>>> 39586a4cf0 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: improve static linking
> flags""
> > >>>>>> 906e935a1f Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: output drivers
> > >>>>>> first for static build""
> > >>>>>> deebf95239 Revert "Revert "build/pkg-config: move pkg-config file
> creation""
> > >>>>>> a3bd9a34bf Revert "Revert "build: always link whole DPDK static
> libraries""
> > >>>>>> d4bc124438 Revert "Revert "devtools: test static linkage with pkg-
> config""
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But to avoid going back&forth I'd prefer to have a signed-off
> > >>>>>> on that approach from:
> > >>>>>> - Luca (for 19.11.6 which has added the changes)
> > >>>>>> - Bruce (for being involved in the old&new case in general)
> > >>>>>> - Thomas (for general master maintainer thoughts)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If this is what is needed to ensure OVS can continue to use this
> > >>>>> release series, then I am absolutely fine with it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This was requested by OVS, so if they don't need it anymore it's
> > >>>> fine by me as well
> > >>>
> > >>> I am not sure to understand the full story, but I am a bit worried
> > >>> that our release is dictated by a single "user" (project using
> > >>> DPDK).
> > >>
> > >> Sure, fair to ask for more detail :-)
> > >>
> > >>> Please do you have links of discussion history?
> > >>
> > >> I ordered the events by time and added links to those occasions
> > >> that I could find:
> > >>
> > >> July 2020            - Initial request by OVS - *1
> > >> July 2020            - Initial queuing     -
> > >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-July/024248.html
> > >> September 2020 - Issues identified; changes reverted    -
> > >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2020-September/024796.html
> > >> October 2020      - Re-applying early in 19.11.6 cycle    - *1
> > >> November 2020  - Tests didn't spot it with 19.11.6 as OVS 2.14.x (not
> > >> the 2.13 LTS) was tested    -
> > >> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides-19.11/rel_notes/release_19_11.html#id16
> > >> March 2021         - Same issue re-found in >=19.11.6    -
> > >> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/2021-March/029418.html
> > >>
> > >> *1 - Luca and I looked for logs, there are no links that I'd know
> > >> of and Luca said it might have come up as a request during a meeting.
> > >
> > > First, I agree to revert the changes again if it causes a regression.
> > > Second, do we know the root cause of the issue?
> > > Is it a problem with the version of pkg-config?
> > > Is it OK with DPDK 20.11?
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to also ask someone to test build of both OVS 2.13 and OVS
> > 2.14 with these changes and with these changes reverted.
> 
> I've test built a few of those already.
> - 19.11.4 (before the patches were applied)
>   - OVS 2.13.1 worked
> - 19.11.6/19.11.7 (patches not yet reverted)
>   - OVS 2.13.1 fails
>   - OVS 2.13.3 fails
> - 19.11.7 patches reverted
>   - OVS 2.13.3 works
> 
> I'd also be happy to hear about OVS 2.14 test builds, so yeah if you could do
> so  @Sunil that would be great.

Tested 19.11 series with OVS 2.14 and observations are like your's Christian.
19.11.4 and 19.11.7 -with patches reverted works fine, 19.11.6/7(patches not yet reverted) cause linking errors.


> For the code, I've not yet pushed it to "real dpdk-stable" until we are sure
> about it, but already to:
>   https://github.com/cpaelzer/dpdk-stable-queue/tree/19.11
> If you happen to build on Ubuntu there is a 19.11.7 + reverts already available
> here
>   https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/3690/
> 
> > Sunil, could you do that?
> >
> > > About the process, I see multiple issues:
> > >
> > > 1/ Some patches were backported for OVS only, but it could break
> > > other applications.
> 
> As we found it even breaks (older) OVS, but importantly the OVS LTS which
> has the highest chance to be in use together with DPDK 19.11 in many places
> :-/
> 
> > > 2/ It is not clear whether the patches were really needed in 19.11.
> > >
> > > 3/ There is no trace of backport requests in the mailing list.
> > >
> > > So I feel we should be stricter on the reasons for a backport.
> > > Note: I am not blaming anyone. Everybody tries to do the best.
> > > I believe sharing requests and discussions on the mailing list could
> > > help in the decision process.
> 
> Agreed
> 
> > +1
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for all the work.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Christian Ehrhardt
> Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> Canonical Ltd

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-24 10:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-18 18:12 [dpdk-stable] " Luca Boccassi
2020-08-24 13:22 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Christian Ehrhardt
2020-08-24 13:25   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-25  9:13 ` [dpdk-stable] " Pei Zhang
2020-08-25 10:08   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Luca Boccassi
2020-08-26  2:30 ` Chen, BoX C
2020-08-26  9:50   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-27  9:47     ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-08-27 10:37       ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-27 10:57         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-08-27 13:23           ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-28  4:03     ` Wang, ShougangX
2020-08-28  7:52       ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-28 14:34 ` Govindharajan, Hariprasad
2020-08-28 15:23   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-08-30 14:36 ` Ali Alnubani
2020-08-31  9:13   ` Luca Boccassi
2020-09-01  8:30 ` [dpdk-stable] " Luca Boccassi
2020-09-01 12:32   ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Christian Ehrhardt
2020-09-01 12:47     ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-01 13:22       ` Pai G, Sunil
2020-09-01 15:10         ` Stokes, Ian
2020-09-07 14:25           ` Luca Boccassi
2021-03-18 11:54         ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-18 13:36           ` Pai G, Sunil
2021-03-18 14:48             ` Ilya Maximets
2021-03-18 18:24               ` Pai G, Sunil
2021-03-22  9:49                 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-22 11:41                   ` Bruce Richardson
2021-03-22 11:59                     ` Luca Boccassi
2021-03-22 12:25                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-22 14:27                         ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-23 18:17                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-23 18:51                             ` Ilya Maximets
2021-03-24  7:44                               ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-03-24 10:28                                 ` Pai G, Sunil [this message]
2021-03-24 13:02                                   ` Christian Ehrhardt
2020-09-01 12:49     ` Luca Boccassi
2020-09-01 13:01       ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-01 13:28         ` Bruce Richardson
2020-09-01 18:04 ` [dpdk-stable] [EXTERNAL] " Abhishek Marathe
2020-09-02 10:47   ` Luca Boccassi

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=BYAPR11MB381497262115C84B9C879E9EBD639@BYAPR11MB3814.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=sunil.pai.g@intel.com \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=hariprasad.govindharajan@intel.com \
    --cc=i.maximets@ovn.org \
    --cc=ian.stokes@intel.com \
    --cc=james.page@canonical.com \
    --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).