[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: fix xenvif_count_skb_slots()
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Durrant > Sent: 07 October 2013 11:24 > To: David Vrabel > Cc: Wei Liu; Ian Campbell; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Annie Li; Matt Wilson; Xi Xiong > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: fix > xenvif_count_skb_slots() > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Vrabel > > Sent: 07 October 2013 10:50 > > To: Paul Durrant > > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wei Liu; Ian > Campbell; > > Annie Li; Matt Wilson; Xi Xiong > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: fix > > xenvif_count_skb_slots() > > > > On 04/10/13 17:26, Paul Durrant wrote: > > > Commit 4f0581d25827d5e864bcf07b05d73d0d12a20a5c introduced an > error > > into > > > xenvif_count_skb_slots() for skbs with a linear area spanning a page > > > boundary. The alignment of skb->data needs to be taken into account, > not > > > just the head length. This patch fixes the issue by dry-running the code > > > from xenvif_gop_skb() (and adjusting the comment above the function > to > > note > > > that). > > > > If 4f0581d2582 is causing the skb->data to be fully packed into a > > minimal number of slots then the simple > > DIV_ROUND_UP(skb_headlen(skb)) > > is correct. > > > > I think this change will miscount in the number of slots, > > over-estimating the count which I think will eventually cause netback to > > think the ring has no space when it has some. > > > > Is the problem here not the miscounting of slots but running out of > > space in the grant table op array because we know use more copy ops? > > > > Essentially yes. Netback is built on the assumption of no more than two grant > copies per ring slot. > To be clear; I believe that, with the packing change, a third grant copy may be used for the initial slot and that is why we blow the array. Paul > > I didn't think there was any real merit in the problematic commit (or at > > least there was no evidence that it was better) so I would suggest just > > reverting it instead of trying to fix it up. > > > > I'd be happy with a reversion. > > > If we do want to change how netback fills the ring then netback needs > > some redesign (i.e., change it so it doesn't have to this counting in > > advance) to make it much less fragile to changes in this area. > > > > Yes, that would be much better. > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |