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

[Bruce Richardson]

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