2017-03-15 03:28, Bruce Richardson:

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:49:47PM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

2. Bonding and link availability

 The hot-plug functionality is not a core function of the bonding PMD.
 It is only interested in knowing if the link is active or not.

Currently, yes.  The suggestion was that you augment the bonding driver so that
hot plug is a core function of bonding.

quoted

 Adding the device persistence to the bonding PMD would mean adding the
 ability to flexibly parse device definitions to cope with plug-ins in
 evolving busses (PCI hot-plug could mean changing bus addresses), being
 able to emulate the EAL and the ether layer and to properly store the
 device configuration.  This means formally describing the life of a
 device in a DPDK application from start to finish.

Which seems to me to be exactly what your PMD does.  I don't see why its
fundamentally harder to do that in an existing pmd, than it is in a new one.

Indeed it does. I must emphasize the "formally describe the life of a
device". The hot-plug functionality goes beyong the link-level check.
The description of a device from a DPDK standpoint is complete in the
fail-safe PMD. The state-machine must be able to describe the entire
life of a device, from the devargs parsing to its start-up.

We cannot reuse the existing bonding PMD architecture for this.  We
would have to rewrite the bonding PMD from the ground up for the
hot-plug function. Because it is actually a different approach to
managing the slaves.

This is what I wanted to illustrate in [Fig. 1] and [Fig. 2]:

- In the bonding, the init and configuration steps are still the
 responsibility of the application and no one else. The bonding PMD
 captures the device, re-applies its configuration upon dev_configure()
 which is actually re-applying part of the configuration already  present
within the slave eth_dev (cf rte_eth_dev_config_restore).

- In the fail-safe, the init and configuration are both the
 responsibilities of the fail-safe PMD itself, not the application
 anymore. This handling of these responsibilities in lieu of the
 application is the whole point of the "deferred hot-plug" support, of
 proposing a simple implementation to the user.

This change in responsibilities is the bulk of the fail-safe code. It
would have to be added as-is to the bonding. Verifying the correctness
of the sync of the initialization phase (acceptable states of a device
following several events registered by the fail-safe PMD) and the
configuration items between the state the application believes it is in
and the fail-safe knows it is in, is the bulk of the fail-safe code.

This function is not overlapping with that of the bonding. The reason I
did not add this whole architecture to the bonding is that when I tried
to do so, I found that I only had two possibilities:

- The current slave handling path is kept, and we only add a new one
 with additional functionalities: full init and conf handling with
 extended parsing capabilities.

- The current slave handling is scraped and replaced entirely by the new
 slave management. The old capturing of existing device is not done
 anymore.

The first solution is not acceptable, because we effectively end-up with
a maintenance nightmare by having to validate two types of slaves with
differing capabilities, differing initialization paths and differing
configuration code.  This is extremely awkward and architecturally
unsound. This is essentially the same as having the exact code of the
fail-safe as an aside in the bonding, maintening exactly the same
breadth of code while having muddier interfaces and organization.

The second solution is not acceptable, because we are bending the whole
existing bonding API to our whim. We could just as well simply rename
the fail-safe PMD as bonding, add a few grouping capabilities and call
it a day. This is not acceptable for users.

If the first solution is indeed not an option, why do you think this
second one would be unacceptable for users? If the functionality remains
the same, I don't see how it matters much for users which driver
provides it or where the code originates.

Despite all the discussion, it still just doesn't make sense to me to
have more than one DPDK driver to handle failover - be it link or
device. If nothing else, it's going to be awkward to explain to users
that if they want fail-over for when a link goes down they have to use
driver A, but if they want fail-over when a NIC gets hotplugged they use
driver B, and if they want both kinds of failover - which would surely
be the expected case - they need to use both drivers. The usability is
a problem here.

It seems everybody agrees on the need for the failsafe code.
We are just discussing the right place to implement it.

Gaetan, moving this code in the bonding PMD means replacing the bonding
API design by the failsafe design, right?
With the failsafe design in the bonding PMD, is it possible to keep other
bonding features?

In case we do not have a consensus in the following days, I suggest to add
this topic in the next techboard meeting agenda.