Re: [PATCH] xen/netback: calculate correctly the SKB slots.

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

> > > wrong, which caused the RX ring to be erroneously declared full,
> > > and the receive queue to be stopped. The problem shows up when two
> > > guest running on the same server tries to communicates using large
.. snip..
> > The function name is xen_netbk_count_skb_slots() in net-next.  This
> > appears to depend on the series in
> > <http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-01/msg00982.html>.
> 
> Yes, I don't think that patchset was intended for prime time just yet.
> Can this issue be reproduced without it?

It was based on 3.4, but the bug and work to fix this was  done on top of
a 3.4 version of netback backported in a 3.0 kernel. Let me double check
whether there were some missing patches.

> 
> > >  	int i, copy_off;
> > >  
> > >  	count = DIV_ROUND_UP(
> > > -			offset_in_page(skb->data)+skb_headlen(skb), PAGE_SIZE);
> > > +			offset_in_page(skb->data + skb_headlen(skb)), PAGE_SIZE);
> > 
> > The new version would be equivalent to:
> > 	count = offset_in_page(skb->data + skb_headlen(skb)) != 0;
> > which is not right, as netbk_gop_skb() will use one slot per page.
> 
> Just outside the context of this patch we separately count the frag
> pages.
> 
> However I think you are right if skb->data covers > 1 page, since the
> new version can only ever return 0 or 1. I expect this patch papers over
> the underlying issue by not stopping often enough, rather than actually
> fixing the underlying issue.

Ah, any thoughts? Have you guys seen this behavior as well?
> 
> > The real problem is likely that you're not using the same condition to
> > stop and wake the queue.
> 
> Agreed, it would be useful to see the argument for this patch presented
> in that light. In particular the relationship between
> xenvif_rx_schedulable() (used to wake queue) and
> xen_netbk_must_stop_queue() (used to stop queue).

Do you have any debug patches to ... do open-heart surgery on the
rings of netback as its hitting the issues Adnan has found?

> 
> As it stands the description describes a setup which can repro the
> problem but doesn't really analyse what actually happens, nor justify
> the correctness of the fix.

Hm, Adnan - you dug in to this and you got tons of notes. Could you
describe what you saw that caused this?