If that's an accurate description of the problem then that seems fine to me. We could add a note to INSTALL.DPDK.md describing the issue I suppose, if someone wants to write one up.
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 02:40:16PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > I personally am fine with waiting on this being fixed until December. > My reading is, it only happens on one specific NIC, and even then only > if you devote a huge number of cores to forwarding on that NIC. > > That said, I won't block this if another committer disagrees with me. > Ben Justin Pravin? What do you think? > > Ethan > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com> wrote: > > So ideally this will be fixed in a future release of DPDK. We have flagged > > this. However that solution will not be in place until the DPDK 2.2 release > > in December at the earliest (DPDK 2.1 is currently in release candidate > > mode at the moment so it won't make it to that). When this has been changed > > in DPDK we can revisit the OVS code. > > > > Technically DPDK is doing what it is supposed to with the current > > implementation i.e. it is returning the max number of queues it supports. > > From the OVS side I think we need to understand that this has a different > > connotation to what it had with previously with NICS in terms of how many > > of those queues are usable. > > > > Unfortunately I don’t see another way to negotiate the tx queue > > initialization without something like the patch below. > > Not until we have more explicit configuration details available for the HW > > device from DPDK. > > > > Thanks > > Ian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ethan Jackson [mailto:et...@nicira.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:13 PM > >> To: Stokes, Ian > >> Cc: Traynor, Kevin; Daniele Di Proietto; dev@openvswitch.org > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] netdev-dpdk: Retry tx/rx queue setup > >> until we don't get any failure. > >> > >> Sorry for taking so long to get to this. The one question I have is: > >> Is OVS the right layer to be fixing this? Isn't this really an issue > >> of DPDK reporting a number of available queues that for practical > >> purposes is wrong? I.E. Shouldn't this be fixed by the DPDK driver of > >> this system? This patch feels like a hack to me . . . > >> > >> Ethan > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Stokes, Ian <ian.sto...@intel.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > Just wondering what the status of this patch is? Is there any feedback > >> > or queries we can answer to help? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Ian > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Traynor, > >> >> Kevin > >> >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:28 AM > >> >> To: Daniele Di Proietto; dev@openvswitch.org > >> >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] netdev-dpdk: Retry tx/rx queue > >> setup > >> >> until we don't get any failure. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- > >> >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Daniele > >> Di > >> >> > Proietto > >> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 7:48 PM > >> >> > To: dev@openvswitch.org > >> >> > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] netdev-dpdk: Retry tx/rx queue setup > >> >> until we > >> >> > don't get any failure. > >> >> > > >> >> > It has been observed that some DPDK device (e.g intel xl710) report > >> an > >> >> > high number of queues but make some of them available only for > >> special > >> >> > functions (SRIOV). Therefore the queues will be counted in > >> >> > rte_eth_dev_info_get(), but rte_eth_tx_queue_setup() will fail. > >> >> > > >> >> > This commit works around the issue by retrying the device > >> >> initialization > >> >> > with a smaller number of queues, if a queue fails to setup. > >> >> > > >> >> > Reported-by: Ian Stokes <ian.sto...@intel.com> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto <diproiet...@vmware.com> > >> >> > --- > >> >> > lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > >> --- > >> >> ------- > >> >> > -- > >> >> > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Acked-by: Kevin Traynor <kevin.tray...@intel.com> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> dev mailing list > >> >> dev@openvswitch.org > >> >> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > dev mailing list > >> > dev@openvswitch.org > >> > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
