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

[Jan Blunck]

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