From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B71A0547
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:58:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF224419AD;
	Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:58:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com
 [209.85.218.52]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8ED410E7
 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:58:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id g5so67019573ejx.0
 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nfware.com; s=google;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=8iMh8b3Lxd6YjLvb37DVVPUPuBXwb3jtHX03ZgW+IQ4=;
 b=F5/K5SbC9H2Yl+xwoK/mzBzAt9Q5FYIzR+SbWjwMzeqpVfYvRF+tXIibeg6HRYGbOk
 YTo9Oi0FZd4TudvEn9QA3yGQF69G9ftX0Zn8Y2kDK+7FnFUHRvcXfiHE689NqZIyTIYh
 5dxIuICLgHSllfqg34mW1ag02/juggNOdM3iMn/N750Eb35LCx4mo3aWU/4zn/81adGB
 HajCyqdYcqCpD52A36WI2/gdzcDMbYcBtWEnCCahgaJ/uTLXNYLurVk6iJnojvO79A3U
 f+eGWncfTCSuxYG8tKTVasfttbQHK17SZfeV2FldgYDr8E5mPNQUQmGYrISMWh53lF4A
 pqcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=8iMh8b3Lxd6YjLvb37DVVPUPuBXwb3jtHX03ZgW+IQ4=;
 b=dLaGHVVD+96I3yB/nhwXYZkDntxtdAS729nCbgtzzQR+hP/793NGpWgHrOizz57VR2
 QDlxRtPsJhSgWJcWKo8+dgrSvssg2BTB9HNXeMCHc78kZqm7EU6gNST0ck6uxR2R6eGP
 YZCr0Z1da0oUFnjJraH+cAI7XDPNhaXDJB7yWi97x0jXobe4iJUhiHM9pMd6vLDYHZ5L
 cw/OGpNXLt1U90Yp8v4kjGA6PhdOgoxxFs9faic5w6IWr1PXcFz3grjov4dPtWJyzja2
 SfsOsd7gnTxI/ixxx6wXDrSC0V9oTNCL85WICgL4Q/jVzxjH/WSJnaFgaJiesUDVeDd/
 /1jQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Lg06KXqOnCH/tfwLwBw5zCOdM1Nnb86OkqXSmaDmUEb+9zZ0K
 d46QdpqKrHMHEqE/h4G8J/RbBGfp7Xp/4exLcncFzw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLNlwdgdquG9/vEMXy2oK7kdr7oKKrliKoJyKC20OGzamhddDCNMyAHLsWVQn27Csu+MCguXjNNQQObkxCZsc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:76c5:: with SMTP id
 kf5mr3997163ejc.526.1619182706079; 
 Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201126144613.4986-1-eladv6@gmail.com>
 <b421b26d-0949-3277-2c00-5a7f287c2dd2@intel.com>
 <CACXF7qnUuiqAq7B2S4s1kOnEXwG2cGmV0wdNKYgxS+YXuqXj2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2345640.QMWomeNEm9@thomas>
 <CAF+s_FxYtSoKmO1Zko05qZymzGbHjW5EZXOgf7Xfufe3ru6q5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <599cc2f5-467a-a954-29be-e77e3b796784@intel.com>
 <CAF+s_FxyBHqm-ms9D7JyOVJ8eKcspoYP+SYyG3bQm27P5sRnyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+s_FxyBHqm-ms9D7JyOVJ8eKcspoYP+SYyG3bQm27P5sRnyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:58:14 +0300
Message-ID: <CAF+s_Fy_Mm-AzPXbav1TxJ77=C5zj5HGmpWhAZ879Ayszr=a-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, 
 Elad Nachman <eladv6@gmail.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
 dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org>, Dan Gora <dg@adax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] kni: fix kernel
 deadlock when using mlx devices
X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches <stable.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>,
 <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>,
 <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "stable" <stable-bounces@dpdk.org>

Sorry I remembered the problem with the deadlock.

We can't just make the shutdown command synchronous, because
we can't release the rtnl_lock anyway. So regardless of the process
mode (sync/async), we have to preserve the lock when processing
the shutdown. It looks like two different settings...

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 3:43 PM Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov@nfware.com> wrote:

> Hi Ferruh,
>
> Thanks. I think it would be great to make this configurable, and maybe even
> make shutdown synchronous by default to preserve the old behavior.
>
> I would be grateful if you could spend time on the work and I am ready to
> review it.
>
> Igor
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:59 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/2021 9:41 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote:
>> > This patch changes the behavior for KNI interface shutdown.
>> > Previously we would receive a real response from the driver, now we
>> > always receive success.
>> > I think this should be reflected in the docs/release notes.
>> >
>>
>> Hi Igor,
>>
>> Make sense, I can add it.
>>
>> Meanwhile do you think has a benefit to make shutdown behavior
>> configurable?
>> Async/Sync shutdown based on module param?
>>
>> > Igor
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:07 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net
>> > <mailto:thomas@monjalon.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     12/04/2021 16:35, Elad Nachman:
>> >      > Hi,
>> >      >
>> >      > The new patch is fine by me.
>> >      >
>> >      > Tested several dozens restarts of our proprietary application
>> without
>> >      > apparent problem.
>> >
>> >     Series applied, thanks.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>