Re: [Xen-devel] Is: SKB_MAX_LEN bites again. Was: Re: bug disabling guest interface

[Steven Haigh <netwiz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/03/2013 1:57 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > - change MAX_SKB_FRAGS to 19 to accommodate all guests
> Changing MAX_SKB_FRAGS is *not* an option upstream. This might be a
> useful local hack but we need to drop the idea as a long term fix.
I agree. Its a hack that seems to work until we have something else to 
offer though. I'll be honest, the internals of the kernel interactions 
like this is a bit beyond my knowledge - but I get quite a few emails of 
stuff going strange. This one has increased dramatically in the past week.
> > Ugh. The negotiations between host and guest is probably the best
> > choice. The issues you are going to hit are that you might need
> > to redo the skbs to match what the frontend's max is.
> IMHO the right fix is for netback to coalesce as it copies from the
> frontend if it needs to do so, it is copying anyway so it should be
> cheap enough. I thought we had discussed this and someone was working on
> implementing it. If not Annie then perhaps it was Matt or Siva (both now
> CC'd)
I did see some talk about it on the xen-devel lists quite some time ago 
- however it seemed to die with no outcome that I could find. Maybe its 
a good time for a nudge on the matter :)
> If necessary netback could even allocate a larger order head in order to
> accommodate very large packets, but I don't expect that to be required
> to fix the immediate issue we are seeing (but gives flexibility)
>
> This should get us past the immediate issue of the upstream change from
> 18->16  frags thing. Longer term the negotiation will allow us to avoid
> future incompatible changes in guest and host network stacks, as well as
> allowing frontends on other OSes (in particular Windows) to havea better
> chance of to DTRT.
Whatever the fix, it has to be on the Dom0 kernel - as stated by others 
in the past, it isn't a feasible fix to include changes on the client. 
There would be too many different guest OSes that would make 
implementation a nightmare - or in fact impossible.
> > Annie, Wei, Ian - were there some RFC patches floating around
> > for this?
I didn't stumble across any in the list archives that I hunted for. Not 
to say they don't exist, but I didn't find them if they do exist.
--
Steven Haigh

Email: netwiz@xxxxxxxxx
Web: https://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
Fax: (03) 8338 0299

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel