On 09-May-19 10:50 AM, Ray Kinsella wrote:
On 09/05/2019 10:38, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
09/05/2019 11:37, Burakov, Anatoly:
On 09-May-19 10:06 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:33:32AM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
On 09-May-19 8:05 AM, David Marchand wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:11 AM Stephen Hemminger
<step...@networkplumber.org <mailto:step...@networkplumber.org>> wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 17:48:06 -0500
Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carri...@intel.com
<mailto:erik.g.carri...@intel.com>> wrote:
> Due to an upcoming fix to allow the timer library to safely free its
> allocations during the finalize() call[1], an ABI change will be
> required. A new lock will be added to the rte_mem_config structure,
> which will be used by the timer library to synchronize init/finalize
> calls among multiple processes.
>
> [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/53334/
>
> Signed-off-by: Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carri...@intel.com
<mailto:erik.g.carri...@intel.com>>
> ---
> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index b47c8c2..7551383 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
>
> + ``rte_eal_devargs_type_count``
>
> +* eal: the ``rte_mem_config`` struct will change to include a
new lock that
> + will allow the timer subsystem to safely release its
allocations at cleanup
> + time. This will result in an ABI break.
> +
> * vfio: removal of ``rte_vfio_dma_map`` and
``rte_vfio_dma_unmap`` APIs which
> have been replaced with ``rte_dev_dma_map`` and
``rte_dev_dma_unmap``
> functions. The due date for the removal targets DPDK 20.02.
NAK
Please go to the effort of making rte_mem_config not part of the
visible ABI.
Then change it.
+1.
I agree on principle, however this won't solve the issue. It doesn't need to
be externally visible, but that's not all of its problems - it's also shared
between processes so there's an ABI contract between primary and secondary
too. This means that, even if the structure itself is not public, any
changes to it will still result in an ABI break. That's the nature of our
shared memory.
In other words, if your goal is to avoid ABI breaks on changing this
structure, making it internal won't help in the slightest.
Is there an ABI contract between primary and secondary. I always assumed
that if using secondary processes the requirement (though undocumented) was
that both had to be linked against the exact same versions of DPDK?
The fact that it's undocumented means we can't assume everyone will do
that :)
If the community agrees that primary/secondary processes should always
use the same DPDK version (regardless of static/dynamic builds etc.),
then this problem would probably be solved.
+1 to document that primary/secondary with different DPDK versions
is not supported.
+1,
but I think we need to go farther - we need a secondary process to check
with the primary process.
We can't assume everyone will read the documentation.
That easily can be done, yes.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
