From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Declan Doherty Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "bonding: use existing enslaved device queues" Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: <61df7d78-c57a-d379-252a-aa7128e7e62e@intel.com> 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> <20161013233714.GC17047@roosta> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ilya Maximets , dev@dpdk.org, Heetae Ahn , Yuanhan Liu , Bernard Iremonger , stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon To: Eric Kinzie , Bruce Richardson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161013233714.GC17047@roosta> 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 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: >>>>> 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 > 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