[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netback: count number required slots for an skb more carefully
On 03/09/13 22:53, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 06:29:50PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: >> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> When a VM is providing an iSCSI target and the LUN is used by the >> backend domain, the generated skbs for direct I/O writes to the disk >> have large, multi-page skb->data but no frags. >> >> With some lengths and starting offsets, xen_netbk_count_skb_slots() >> would be one short because the simple calculation of >> DIV_ROUND_UP(skb_headlen(), PAGE_SIZE) was not accounting for the >> decisions made by start_new_rx_buffer() which does not guarantee >> responses are fully packed. >> >> For example, a skb with length < 2 pages but which spans 3 pages would >> be counted as requiring 2 slots but would actually use 3 slots. >> >> skb->data: >> >> | 1111|222222222222|3333 | >> >> Fully packed, this would need 2 slots: >> >> |111122222222|22223333 | >> >> But because the 2nd page wholy fits into a slot it is not split across >> slots and goes into a slot of its own: >> >> |1111 |222222222222|3333 | >> >> Miscounting the number of slots means netback may push more responses >> than the number of available requests. This will cause the frontend >> to get very confused and report "Too many frags/slots". The frontend >> never recovers and will eventually BUG. >> >> Fix this by counting the number of required slots more carefully. In >> xen_netbk_count_skb_slots(), more closely follow the algorithm used by >> xen_netbk_gop_skb() by introducing xen_netbk_count_frag_slots() which >> is the dry-run equivalent of netbk_gop_frag_copy(). >> > > Phew! So this is backend miscounting bug. I thought it was a frontend > bug so it didn't ring a bell when we had our face-to-face discussion, > sorry. :-( > > This bug was discussed back in July among Annie, Matt, Ian and I. We > finally agreed to take Matt's solution. Matt agreed to post final > version within a week but obviously he's too busy to do so. I was away > so I didn't follow closely. Eventually it fell through the crack. :-( I think I prefer fixing the counting for backporting to stable kernels. Xi's approach of packing the ring differently is a change in frontend visible behaviour and seems more risky. e.g., possible performance impact so I would like to see some performance analysis of that approach. David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |