Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4 6/7] xen-netback: coalesce slots in TX path and fix regressions

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
[...]
> > +module_param_cb(max_skb_slots, &max_skb_slots_param_ops,
> > +               &max_skb_slots, 0444);
> 
> Is all this infrastructure instead of module_param_int just so we can
> check XEN_NETIF_NR_SLOTS_MIN? I'm inclined to suggest that if an admin
> wants to set a smaller slot limit then they get to keep the pieces.
> 
> Or if you really want to check it then you could check+log/reject in the
> module init function.
> 

I will go for the latter one. :-)

> > 
[...]
> >         struct pending_tx_info pending_tx_info[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > -       struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > +       /* Coalescing tx requests before copying makes number of grant
> > +        * copy ops greater of equal to number of slots required. In
>                               ^or
> 
> > +        * worst case a tx request consumes 2 gnttab_copy.
> 
> I'm happy with this as an upper bound but can it be made smaller?
> 
> For example there are at most MAX_PENDING_REQS on the ring, but we are
> filling MAX_SKB_FRAGS with that data, therefore only MAX_SKB_FRAGS (-1?)
> or those requests can cross a frag boundary and therefore the actual max
> is MAX_PENDING_REQS+MAX_SKB_FRAGS.
> 
> Is that logic right? Perhaps need to account for data going into the
> head too with another +N?
> 

I'm afraid this is not the case. Vif has a ring of size
MAX_PENDING_REQS, but that ring might contain multiple skbs, so the
statement "we are filling MAX_SKB_FRAGS with that data" doesn't stand.

> > +        */
> > +       struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[2*MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > 
> >         u16 pending_ring[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
> > 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > -               memcpy(txp, RING_GET_REQUEST(&vif->tx, cons + frags),
> > +               /* Xen network protocol had implicit dependency on
> > +                * MAX_SKB_FRAGS. XEN_NETIF_NR_SLOTS_MIN is set to the
> > +                * historical MAX_SKB_FRAGS value 18 to honor the same
> > +                * behavior as before. Any packet using more than 18
> > +                * slots but less than max_skb_slots slots is dropped
> > +                */
> 
> It seems a bit odd not to accept such a thing if the local network stack
> can cope with it but I suppose the intention here is to maintain the
> historical status quo to reduce the problem space when we imminently
> implement proper negotiation between front- and backend about the number
> of slots they can handle?
> 

Yes, this behavior will be altered once we have mechanism to negotiate.


Wei.

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