[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] Revert "bonding: use existing enslaved device queues"

[Jan Blunck]

Ferruh,

I've been working on a patch but was distracted by other stuff and
therefore haven't tested it yet.

Stay tuned,
Jan

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 3:00 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote:
>>> On 25/10/16 13:57, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:07:17PM +0100, Declan Doherty wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/16 15:51, Jan Blunck wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Declan Doherty
>>>>>> <declan.doherty at intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/10/16 00:37, Eric Kinzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed Oct 12 16:24:21 +0100 2016, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:24:54PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 07.10.2016 05:02, Eric Kinzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed Sep 07 15:28:10 +0300 2016, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This reverts commit 5b7bb2bda5519b7800f814df64d4e015282140e5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is necessary to reconfigure all queues every time because
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we're reconfiguring bonding device with new memory
>>>>>>>>>>>> pool,
>>>>>>>>>>>> already configured queues will still use the old one. And if the old
>>>>>>>>>>>> mempool be freed, application likely will panic in attempt to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> freed mempool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This happens when we use the bonding device with OVS 2.6 while MTU
>>>>>>>>>>>> reconfiguration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PANIC in rte_mempool_get_ops():
>>>>>>>>>>>> assert "(ops_index >= 0) && (ops_index < RTE_MEMPOOL_MAX_OPS_IDX)"
>>>>>>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: <stable at dpdk.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets at samsung.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>  drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 10 ++--------
>>>>>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> index b20a272..eb5b6d1 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1305,8 +1305,6 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>>>>>>>>>>         struct bond_rx_queue *bd_rx_q;
>>>>>>>>>>>>         struct bond_tx_queue *bd_tx_q;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -       uint16_t old_nb_tx_queues = slave_eth_dev->data->nb_tx_queues;
>>>>>>>>>>>> -       uint16_t old_nb_rx_queues = slave_eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues;
>>>>>>>>>>>>         int errval;
>>>>>>>>>>>>         uint16_t q_id;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1347,9 +1345,7 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         /* Setup Rx Queues */
>>>>>>>>>>>> -       /* Use existing queues, if any */
>>>>>>>>>>>> -       for (q_id = old_nb_rx_queues;
>>>>>>>>>>>> -            q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues; q_id++) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> +       for (q_id = 0; q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues;
>>>>>>>>>>>> q_id++) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 bd_rx_q = (struct bond_rx_queue
>>>>>>>>>>>> *)bonded_eth_dev->data->rx_queues[q_id];
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 errval =
>>>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id, q_id,
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1365,9 +1361,7 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev
>>>>>>>>>>>> *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         /* Setup Tx Queues */
>>>>>>>>>>>> -       /* Use existing queues, if any */
>>>>>>>>>>>> -       for (q_id = old_nb_tx_queues;
>>>>>>>>>>>> -            q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_tx_queues; q_id++) {
>>>>>>>>>>>> +       for (q_id = 0; q_id < bonded_eth_dev->data->nb_tx_queues;
>>>>>>>>>>>> q_id++) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 bd_tx_q = (struct bond_tx_queue
>>>>>>>>>>>> *)bonded_eth_dev->data->tx_queues[q_id];
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 errval =
>>>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id, q_id,
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NAK
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are still some users of this code.  Let's give them a chance to
>>>>>>>>>>> comment before removing it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are these users in CC-list? If not, could you, please, add them?
>>>>>>>>>> This patch awaits in mail-list already more than a month. I think, it's
>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>> time period for all who wants to say something. Patch fixes a real bug
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> prevent using of DPDK bonding in all applications that reconfigures
>>>>>>>>>> devices
>>>>>>>>>> in runtime including OVS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eric, does reverting this patch cause you problems directly, or is your
>>>>>>>>> concern
>>>>>>>>> just with regards to potential impact to others?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> /Bruce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This won't impact me directly.  The users are CCed (different thread)
>>>>>>>> and I haven't seen any comment, so I no longer have any objection to
>>>>>>>> reverting this change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As there has been no further objections and this reinstates the original
>>>>>>> expected behavior of the bonding driver. I'm re-ack'ing for inclusion in
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, I can revert the revert for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I read this correctly that you are not interested in fixing this properly?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan, sorry I missed the replies from last week due to the way my mail client
>>>>> was filtering the conversation. Let me have another look at this and I'll
>>>>> come back to the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Declan
>>>>
>>>> While this patch has already been applied to dpdk-next-net tree, it
>>>> appears that there is still some ongoing discussion about it. I'm
>>>> therefore planning to pull it back out of the tree for rc2. If a
>>>> subsequent consensus is reached we can see about including it in rc3.
>>>>
>>>> Declan, as maintainer, does this seem reasonable to you.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> /Bruce
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Bruce, that seems reasonable, I would like to discuss this further with
>>> Jan and Ilya.
>>>
>>
>> Done. Hopefully consensus on a correct solution for this driver can be
>> reached soon.
>>
>
> Is there an update for this patch? Is a consensus reached?
>
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>