Re: [PATCHv2 10/14] virtio_net: limit xmit polling

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:58:26AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 14:19:00 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:37:15AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Can we hit problems with OOM?  Sure, but no worse than now...
> > > The problem is that this "virtqueue_get_capacity()" returns the worst
> > > case, not the normal case.  So using it is deceptive.
> > > 
> > 
> > Maybe just document this?
> 
> Yes, but also by renaming virtqueue_get_capacity().  Takes it from a 3
> to a 6 on the API hard-to-misuse scale.
> 
> How about, virtqueue_min_capacity()?  Makes the reader realize something
> weird is going on.

Absolutely. Great idea.

> > I still believe capacity really needs to be decided
> > at the virtqueue level, not in the driver.
> > E.g. with indirect each skb uses a single entry: freeing
> > 1 small skb is always enough to have space for a large one.
> > 
> > I do understand how it seems a waste to leave direct space
> > in the ring while we might in practice have space
> > due to indirect. Didn't come up with a nice way to
> > solve this yet - but 'no worse than now :)'
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > > > I just wanted to localize the 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS logic that tries to make
> > > > sure we have enough space in the buffer. Another way to do
> > > > that is with a define :).
> > > 
> > > To do this properly, we should really be using the actual number of sg
> > > elements needed, but we'd have to do most of xmit_skb beforehand so we
> > > know how many.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rusty.
> > 
> > Maybe I'm confused here.  The problem isn't the failing
> > add_buf for the given skb IIUC.  What we are trying to do here is stop
> > the queue *before xmit_skb fails*. We can't look at the
> > number of fragments in the current skb - the next one can be
> > much larger.  That's why we check capacity after xmit_skb,
> > not before it, right?
> 
> No, I was confused...  More coffee!
> 
> Thanks,
> Rusty.