On 9/6/2021 9:51 AM, Ding, Xuan wrote: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> >> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 12:13 AM >> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Burakov, Anatoly >> <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>; Ding, Xuan <xuan.d...@intel.com>; >> dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: maxime.coque...@redhat.com; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>; Hu, >> Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; >> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce change in vfio dma mapping >> >> >> >> On 02/09/2021 10:50, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> On 9/1/2021 2:25 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>> On 01-Sep-21 12:42 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>> On 9/1/2021 12:01 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>>>> On 01-Sep-21 10:56 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/1/2021 2:41 AM, Ding, Xuan wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Ferruh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 12:01 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Ding, Xuan <xuan.d...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Burakov, >> Anatoly >>>>>>>>> <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>> Cc: maxime.coque...@redhat.com; Xia, Chenbo >> <chenbo....@intel.com>; Hu, >>>>>>>>> Jiayu <jiayu...@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce >> <bruce.richard...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: announce change in vfio dma mapping >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2021 2:10 PM, Xuan Ding wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Currently, the VFIO subsystem will compact adjacent DMA regions for >> the >>>>>>>>>> purposes of saving space in the internal list of mappings. This has a >>>>>>>>>> side effect of compacting two separate mappings that just happen to >> be >>>>>>>>>> adjacent in memory. Since VFIO implementation on IA platforms also >> does >>>>>>>>>> not allow partial unmapping of memory mapped for DMA, the current >>>>>>>>> DPDK >>>>>>>>>> VFIO implementation will prevent unmapping of accidentally adjacent >>>>>>>>>> maps even though it could have been unmapped [1]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The proper fix for this issue is to change the VFIO DMA mapping API >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> also include page size, and always map memory page-by-page. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-July/213493.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xuan Ding <xuan.d...@intel.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 3 +++ >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>>>>>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>>>>>>>> index 76a4abfd6b..1234420caf 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst >>>>>>>>>> @@ -287,3 +287,6 @@ Deprecation Notices >>>>>>>>>> reserved bytes to 2 (from 3), and use 1 byte to indicate >>>>>>>>>> warnings >> and >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> information from the crypto/security operation. This field will >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>>> communicate events such as soft expiry with IPsec in lookaside >> mode. >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +* vfio: the functions `rte_vfio_container_dma_map` will be amended >> to >>>>>>>>>> + include page size. This change is targeted for DPDK 22.02. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this means adding a new parameter to API? >>>>>>>>> If so this is an ABI/API break and we can't do this change in the >>>>>>>>> 22.02. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Our original plan is add a new parameter in order not to use a new >> function >>>>>>>> name, so you mean, any changes to the API can only be done in the LTS >> version? >>>>>>>> If so, we can only add a new API and retire the old one in 22.11. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can add a new API anytime. Adding new parameter to an existing API >> can be >>>>>>> done on the ABI break release. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, 22.11 then? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can add the new API in this release, and start using it. >>>>>>> And mark the old API as deprecated in this release. This lets existing >> binaries >>>>>>> to keep using it, but app needs to switch to new API for compilation. >>>>>>> Old API can be removed on 22.11, and you will need a deprecation notice >> before >>>>>>> 22.11 for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is above plan works for you? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We have slightly rethought our approach, and the functionality that Xuan >>>>>> requires does not rely on this API. They can, for all intents and >>>>>> purposes, be >>>>>> considered unrelated issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> I still think it's a good idea to update the API that way, so I would >>>>>> like to do >>>>>> that, and if we have to wait until 22.11 to fix it, I'm OK with that. >>>>>> Since >>>>>> there no longer is any urgency here, it's acceptable to wait for the >>>>>> next LTS >> to >>>>>> break it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Got it. >>>>> >>>>> As far as I understand, main motivation in techboard decision was to >> prevent the >>>>> ABI break as much as possible (main reason of decision wasn't deprecation >> notice >>>>> being late). But if the correct thing to do is to rename the API (and >>>>> break the >>>>> ABI), I don't see the benefit to wait one more year, it is just delaying >>>>> the >>>>> impact and adding overhead to us. >>>>> I am for being pragmatic and doing the change in this release if API >>>>> rename >> is >>>>> better option, perhaps we can visit the issue again in techboard. >>>>> >>>>> Can you please describe why renaming API is better option, comparing to >> adding >>>>> new API with new parameter? >>>> >>>> I take it you meant "why renaming API *isn't* a better option". >>>> >>>> The problem we're solving is that the API in question does not know about >> page >>>> sizes and thus can't map segments page-by-page. I mean I /guess/ we could >> have >>>> two API's (one paged, one not paged), but then we get into all kinds of >>>> hairy >>>> things about the API leaking the details of underlying platform. >>>> >>>> Bottom line: i like current API function name. It's concise, it's >>>> descriptive. >>>> It's only missing a parameter, which i would like to add. A rename has been >>>> suggested (deprecate old API, add new API with a different name, and with >> added >>>> parameter), but honestly, I don't see why we have to do that because this >>>> is >>>> predicated upon the assumption that we *can't* break ABI at all, under any >>>> circumstances. >>>> >>>> Can you please explain to me what is wrong with keeping a versioned symbol? >>>> Like, keep the old function around to keep ABI compatibility, but break the >> API >>>> compatibility for those who target 22.02 or later? That's what symbol >> versioning >>>> is *for*, is it not? >>>> >>> >>> Nothing wrong with symbol versioning, indeed that is preferred way if it >>> works >>> for you, I didn't get that symbol versioning is planned. >>> >>> @Ray, >>> Since symbol versioning is planned, ABI won't break, but API will change, >>> can >>> this change be done in this release without deprecation notice? >> >> Yes - I would think so. >> Since we are going to the effort of using symbol versioning nothing is being >> depreciated as such (yet). >> >>> Later we can have a deprecation notice to remove old symbol on 22.11. > > Thanks for your explanation. > @Yigit, Ferruh Does it mean that we can do API change in 21.11? If so, we will > follow the process and target API change in this release. :) >
With symbol versioning, yes you can make the change in this release. You can send another deprecation notice to remove the old symbol for 22.11, that can be sent anytime until 22.08 released.
