[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce change in dma mapping/unmapping

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 26-Aug-21 10:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 8/25/2021 12:47 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 25-Aug-21 12:27 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.ding at 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..272ffa993e 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` and
>>> `rte_vfio_container_dma_unmap`
>>> +  will be amended to include page size. This change is targeted for DPDK 21.11.
>>>
>>
>> Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>>
> 
> Techboard decision was to add a new API, instead of updating existing ones, to
> not break the apps using this API.
> 
> @Xuan, @Anatoly, can you please confirm if this will solve your problem?
> 

I don't think adding a new API is a particularly good solution. The 
"new" API will be almost exactly as the old one, but adding one 
parameter. I don't expect code duplication to be an issue, but having 
two API's that do the same thing seems like it's rife for potential 
confusion.

If we add a new API, we can then either remove the old API entirely in 
22.11 (effectively renaming it), or we remove the new API in 22.11 and 
rename it back to the old function name. I don't think neither of these 
is a good solution, as we risk introducing more users for the API that 
will later change.

I think the pain of updating current software for 21.11 (while keeping 
compatibility with 20.11 ABI!) is going to happen regardless, and 
whether we decide to add a "temporary" new API or permanently rename the 
old one. It's (in my opinion) easier to just bite the bullet and update 
the function in 21.11.

However, if the tech board feels like adding a new API is a good 
solution, then okay, but we need to flesh out roadmap a bit better. Do 
we rename the old API, or do we add a temporary new API?

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly