|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] xennet: skb rides the rocket: 20 slots
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:10:56PM +0800, ANNIE LI wrote:
>
>
> On 2013-1-9 4:55, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >> if (unlikely(frags>= MAX_SKB_FRAGS)) {
> >> netdev_dbg(vif->dev, "Too many frags\n");
> >> return -frags;
> >> }
> >I have added some rate limited warns in this function. However none seems to
> >be triggered while the pv-guest reports the "skb rides the rocket" ..
>
> Oh, yes, "skb rides the rocket" is a protect mechanism in netfront,
> and it is not caused by netback checking code, but they all concern
> about the same thing(frags >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS ). I thought those
> packets were dropped by backend check, sorry for the confusion.
>
> In netfront, following code would check whether required slots
> exceed MAX_SKB_FRAGS, and drop skbs which does not meet this
> requirement directly.
>
> if (unlikely(slots > MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1)) {
> net_alert_ratelimited(
> "xennet: skb rides the rocket: %d slots\n", slots);
> goto drop;
> }
>
> In netback, following code also compared frags with MAX_SKB_FRAGS,
> and create error response for netfront which does not meet this
> requirment. In this case, netfront will also drop corresponding
> skbs.
>
> if (unlikely(frags >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS)) {
> netdev_dbg(vif->dev, "Too many frags\n");
> return -frags;
> }
>
> So it is correct that netback log was not print out because those
> packets are drops directly by frontend check, not by backend check.
> Without the frontend check, it is likely that netback check would
> block these skbs and create error response for netfront.
>
> So two ways are available: workaround in netfront for those packets,
> doing re-fragment copying, but not sure how copying hurt
> performance. Another is to implement in netback, as discussed in
There is already some copying done (the copying of the socket data
from userspace to the kernel) - so the extra copy might not be that
bad as the data can be in the cache. This would probably be a way
to deal with old backends that cannot deal with this new feature-flag.
> "netchannel vs MAX_SKB_FRAGS". Maybe these two mechanism are all
> necessary?
Lets see first if this is indeed the problem. Perhaps a simple debug
patch that just does:
s/MAX_SKB_FRAGS/DEBUG_MAX_FRAGS/
#define DEBUG_MAX_FRAGS 21
in both netback and netfront to set the maximum number of frags we can
handle to 21? If that works with Sander test - then yes, it looks like
we really need to get this 'feature-max-skb-frags' done.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |