DPDK-dev Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix stale queue-count check order
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 09:41:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260904094114.532d4d96@phoenix.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260904133842.3155785-1-ciara.loftus@intel.com>

On Fri,  4 Sep 2026 13:38:42 +0000
Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus@intel.com> wrote:

> Currently, when setting the number of queues via `port config all txq/rxq`,
> testpmd validates the requested queue count against a device's current
> queue-count limits, then rebuilds the forwarding stream configuration
> before refreshing each port's cached device information. The forwarding
> stream setup step re-checks the requested queue count against that cache,
> so it can still reject a value that was just accepted if the cached
> limits are older than the freshly queried ones.
> 
> This is not observable while a port's queue-count limits stay fixed
> for its lifetime. It becomes visible whenever a PMD's reported
> `max_rx_queues`/`max_tx_queues` change after the port was first probed,
> for example when a driver recomputes queue capacity in response to a
> traffic management (`rte_tm`) hierarchy commit. The stale cached values
> then no longer match what the device currently reports, so a queue count
> that is actually valid can be wrongly rejected.
> 
> Fix it by refreshing the cached device information before rebuilding
> the forwarding stream configuration, so both checks operate on the same,
> current queue-count limits.
> 
> Fixes: 0c0db76f42ed ("app/testpmd: separate forward config setup from display")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus@intel.com>

Applied to next-net, but rewrote the overly wordy commit message.
I chopped it down to two sentences.

You need to ask AI to generate concise commit messages or you
get three paragraphs for one line change like this.

Also, I don't think this needs to go to stable. It is a theoretical problem
not something actually reproducible.

      reply	other threads:[~2026-09-04 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-04 13:38 [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix stale queue-count check order Ciara Loftus
2026-09-04 16:41 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260904094114.532d4d96@phoenix.local \
    --to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=ciara.loftus@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox