RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network troubles "bisected"

Paul Durrant
2014-03-26T15:50:35Z

> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it]
> Sent: 26 March 2014 15:23
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell; linux-
> kernel; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
> troubles "bisected"
>
>
> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 3:44:42 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it]
> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 11:11
> >> To: Paul Durrant
> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell;
> linux-
> >> kernel; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
> >> troubles "bisected"
> >>
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> You have been awfully silent for this whole thread while this is a
> regression
> >> caused by a patch of you
> >> (ca2f09f2b2c6c25047cfc545d057c4edfcfe561c as clearly stated much earlier
> in
> >> this thread).
> >>
>
> > Sorry, I've been distracted...
>
> >> The commit messages states:
> >> "net_rx_action() is the place where we could do with an accurate
> >> predicition but,
> >> since that has proven tricky to calculate, a cheap worse-case (but not
> too
> >> bad)
> >> estimate is all we really need since the only thing we *must* prevent is
> >> xenvif_gop_skb()
> >> consuming more slots than are available."
> >>
> >> Your "worst-case" calculation stated in the commit message is clearly not
> the
> >> worst case,
> >> since it doesn't take calls to "get_next_rx_buffer" into account.
> >>
>
> > It should be taking into account the behaviour of start_new_rx_buffer(),
> which should be true if a slot is full or a frag will overflow the current slot and
> doesn't require splitting.
> > The code in net_rx_action() makes the assumption that each frag will
> require as many slots as its size requires, i.e. it assumes no packing of
> multiple frags into a single slot, so it should be a worst case.
> > Did I miss something in that logic?
>
> Yes.
> In "xenvif_gop_skb()" this loop:
>
> for (i = 0; i < nr_frags; i++) {
> xenvif_gop_frag_copy(vif, skb, npo,
> skb_frag_page(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]),
> skb_frag_size(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]),
> skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i].page_offset,
> &head);
> }
>
> Is capable of using up (at least) 1 slot more than is anticipated for in
> "net_rx_action()" by this code:
>
> for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) {
> unsigned int size;
> size = skb_frag_size(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]);
> max_slots_needed += DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE);
> }
>
> And this happens when it calls "get_next_rx_buffer()" from
> "xenvif_gop_frag_copy()" where it's breaking down the frag.
>

The function that determines whether to consume another slot is start_new_rx_buffer() and for each frag I don't see why this would return true more than DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE) times. It may be called more times than that since the code in xenvif_gop_frag_copy() must also allow for the offset of the frag but should not return true in all cases. So, I still cannot see why a frag would ever consume more than DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE) slots.

Paul

> Ultimately this results in bad grant reference warnings (and packets marked
> as "errors" in the interface statistics).
>
> In my case it always seems to be a skb with 1 frag which is broken down in 5
> or 6 pieces ..
>
> So "get_next_rx_buffer()" is called once .. and i'm overrunning the ring with
> 1 slot, but i'm not sure if that's not coincedence
> since in the code there seem to be no explicit limitation on how often this
> code path is taken. So perhaps it's implicitly limited
> since packets and frags can't be arbitrarily large in comparison with the
> page_size but that's not something i'm capable of figuring out :-)
>
>
>
> > Paul
>
> >> Problem is that a worst case calculation would probably be reverting to
> the
> >> old calculation,
> >> and the problems this patch was trying to solve would reappear, but
> >> introducing new regressions
> >> isn't very useful either. And since it seems such a tricky and fragile thing to
> >> determine, it would
> >> probably be best to be split into a distinct function with a comment to
> explain
> >> the rationale used.
> >>
> >> Since this doesn't seem to progress very fast .. CC'ed some more folks ..
> you
> >> never know ..
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sander
> >>
> >>
> >> Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 4:29:42 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 4:15:39 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 07:28:34PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>> > Yes there is only one frag .. but it seems to be much larger than
> >> PAGE_SIZE .. and xenvif_gop_frag_copy brakes that frag down into
> smaller
> >> bits .. hence the calculation in xenvif_rx_action determining the slots
> needed
> >> by doing:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > for (i = 0; i < nr_frags; i++) {
> >> >>> > unsigned int size;
> >> >>> > size = skb_frag_size(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]);
> >> >>> > max_slots_needed += DIV_ROUND_UP(size,
> PAGE_SIZE);
> >> >>> > }
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > But the code in xenvif_gop_frag_copy .. seems to be needing one
> >> more slot (from the emperical test) .. and calling "get_next_rx_buffer"
> >> seems involved in that ..
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hmm looked again .. and it seems this is it .. when your frags are large
> >> enough you have the chance of running into this.
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> >> get_next_rx_buffer is guarded by start_new_rx_buffer. Do you see
> any
> >> >> problem with that implementation?
> >> > In general no, but "get_next_rx_buffer" up's cons .. and the calculations
> >> done in "xenvif_rx_action" for max_slots_needed to prevent the overrun
> >> > don't count in this possibility. So it's not the guarding of
> >> "start_new_rx_buffer" that is at fault. It's the ones early in
> >> "xenvif_rx_action".
> >> > The ones that were changed by Paul's patch from MAX_SKB_FRAGS to a
> >> calculated value that should be a "slim fit".
> >>
> >> > The problem is in determining upfront in "xenvif_rx_action" when and
> how
> >> often the "get_next_rx_buffer" path will be taken.
> >> > Unless there are other non direct restrictions (from a size point of view)
> it
> >> can be called multiple times per frag per skb.
> >>
> >> >>> Problem is .. i don't see an easy fix, the "one more slot" of the
> empirical
> >> test doesn't seem to be the worst case either (i think):
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - In my case the packets that hit this only have 1 frag, but i could have
> >> had more frags.
> >> >>> I also think you can't rule out the possibility of doing the
> >> "get_next_rx_buffer" for multiple subsequent frags from one packet,
> >> >>> so in the worst (and perhaps even from a single frag since it's looped
> >> over a split of it in what seems PAGE_SIZE pieces.)
> >> >>> - So an exact calculation of how much slots we are going to need for
> >> hitting this "get_next_rx_buffer" upfront in "xenvif_rx_action" seems
> >> unfeasible.
> >> >>> - A worst case gamble seems impossible either .. if you take multiple
> >> frags * multiple times the "get_next_rx_buffer" ... you would probably be
> >> back at just
> >> >>> setting the needed_slots to MAX_SKB_FRAGS.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Other thing would be checking for the available slots before doing
> the
> >> "get_next_rx_buffer" .. how ever .. we don't account for how many slots
> we
> >> still need to
> >> >>> just process the remaining frags.
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> >> We've done a worst case estimation for whole SKB (linear area + all
> >> >> frags) already, at the very first beginning. That's what
> >> >> max_slots_needed is for.
> >>
> >> >>> - Just remove the whole "get_next_rx_buffer".. just tested it but it
> >> seems the "get_next_rx_buffer" is necessary .. when i make
> >> start_new_rx_buffer always return false
> >> >>> i hit the bug below :S
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So the questions are ... is the "get_next_rx_buffer" part really
> necessary
> >> ?
> >> >>> - if not, what is the benefit of the "get_next_rx_buffer" and does
> that
> >> outweigh the additional cost of accounting
> >> >>> of needed_slots for the frags that have yet to be processed ?
> >> >>> - if yes, erhmmm what would be the best acceptable solution ..
> >> returning to using MAX_SKB_FRAGS ?
> >> >>>
> >>
> >> >> I think you need to answer several questions first:
> >> >> 1. is max_slots_needed actually large enough to cover whole SKB?
> >> > No it's not if, you end up calling "get_next_rx_buffer" one or
> multiple
> >> times when processing the SKB
> >> > you have the chance of overrunning (or be saved because prod gets
> >> upped before you overrun).
> >>
> >> >> 2. is the test of ring slot availability acurate?
> >> > Seems to be.
> >>
> >> >> 3. is the number of ring slots consumed larger than
> max_slots_needed? (I
> >> >> guess the answer is yes)
> >> > Yes that was the whole point.
> >>
> >> >> 4. which step in the break-down procedure causes backend to overrun
> >> the
> >> >> ring?
> >> > The "get_next_rx_buffer" call .. that is not accounted for (which can
> be
> >> called
> >> > multiple times per frag (unless some other none obvious size
> >> restriction limits this
> >> > to one time per frag or one time per SKB).
> >> > In my errorneous case it is called one time, but it would be nice if
> there
> >> would be some theoretical proof
> >> > instead of just some emperical test.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> It doesn't matter how many frags your SKB has and how big a frag is. If
> >> >> every step is correct then you're fine. The code you're looking at
> >> >> (start_new_rx_buffer / get_next_rx_buffer and friend) needs to be
> >> >> carefully examined.
> >>
> >> > Well it seems it only calls "get_next_rx_buffer" in some special cases ..
> >> (and that also what i'm seeing because it doesn't happen
> >> > continously.
> >>
> >> > Question is shouldn't this max_needed_slots calc be reverted to what it
> >> was before 3.14 and take the time in 3.15 to figure out a
> >> > the theoretical max (if it can be calculated upfront) .. or another way to
> >> guarantee the code is able to process the whole SKB ?
> >>
> >> >> Wei.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>