From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Kinzie Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "bonding: use existing enslaved device queues" Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:37:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20161013233714.GC17047@roosta> References: <1473251290-22053-1-git-send-email-i.maximets@samsung.com> <20161007020225.GA22829@roosta.home> <1854c9f5-eedf-fc7b-a786-7526b80b6efa@samsung.com> <20161012152421.GC104428@bricha3-MOBL3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ilya Maximets , dev@dpdk.org, Declan Doherty , Heetae Ahn , Yuanhan Liu , Bernard Iremonger , stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161012152421.GC104428@bricha3-MOBL3> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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: > > >> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets > > >> --- > > >> 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