From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/19] Revert "vhost: workaround MQ fails to startup" Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 21:05:11 +0800 Message-ID: <20171103130510.GB12931@yliu-home> References: <20171005083627.27828-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20171005083627.27828-2-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Kavanagh, Mark B" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Horton, Remy" , "Bie, Tiwei" , "mst@redhat.com" , "jfreiman@redhat.com" , "vkaplans@redhat.com" , "jasowang@redhat.com" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Loftus, Ciara" , "Stokes, Ian" , Thomas Monjalon To: Maxime Coquelin Return-path: Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621A4DE3 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:05:18 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 10:40:26AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >Moving from QEMU v2.7.0 to v2.10.0 resolves the issue. However, herein lies the issue: QEMU v2.10.0 was only released in August of this year; anecdotally, we know that many OvS-DPDK customers use older versions of QEMU (typically, v2.7.0), and are likely un[able|willing] to move. With this patch, a hard dependency on QEMU v2.10 is created for users who want to use the vHU multiq feature in DPDK v17.11 (and subsequently, the upcoming OvS v2.9.0), which IMO will likely be unacceptable for many. > > Do you mean that upstream Qemu v2.7.0 is used in production? > I would expect the customers to use a distro Qemu which should contain > relevant fixes, or follow upstream's stable branches. > > FYI, Qemu v2.9.1 contains a backport of the fix. > > >One potential solution to this problem is to introduce a compile-time option that would allow the user to [dis|en]able the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK feature - is that something that would be acceptable to you Maxime? > > Yes, that's one option, but: > 1. VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK enabled should be the default > 2. VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK disabled will be less extensively > tested. > > Yuanhan, what do you think? My suggestion is to still disable it by default. Qemu 2.7 - 2.9 (inclusive) is a pretty big range, that I think quite many people would hit this issue. --yliu