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

[Ferruh Yigit]

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