qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] How to lock-up your tap-based VM network
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:19:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BC46169.7020204@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201004122107.19425.paul@codesourcery.com>

Paul Brook wrote:
>> A major reason for this deadlock could likely be removed by shutting
>> down the tap (if peered) or dropping packets in user space (in case of
>> vlan) when a NIC is stopped or otherwise shut down. Currently most (if
>> not all) NIC models seem to signal both "queue full" and "RX disabled"
>> via !can_receive().
> 
> No. A disabled device should return true from can_recieve, then discard the 
> packets in its receive callback. Failure to do so is a bug in the device. It 
> looks like the virtio-net device may be buggy.

That's not a virtio-only issue. In fact, we ran into this over pcnet,
and a quick check of other popular PCI NIC models (except for rtl8139)
revealed the same picture: They only report can_receive if their
receiver unit is up and ready (some also include the queue state, but
that's an "add-on").

I think it's clear why: "can_receive" strongly suggests that a suspended
receiver should make the model return false. If we want to keep this
handler, it should be refactored to something like "queue_full".

But before starting any refactoring endeavor: Do we have a consensus on
the direction? Refactor can_receive to queue_full? Or even drop it?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-04-13 12:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-12 16:43 [Qemu-devel] How to lock-up your tap-based VM network Jan Kiszka
2010-04-12 20:07 ` Paul Brook
2010-04-12 21:49   ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-12 23:20     ` Paul Brook
2010-04-13 12:30       ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 13:02         ` Paul Brook
2010-04-13 12:22     ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 12:19   ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2010-04-13 13:03     ` Paul Brook
2010-04-13 13:15       ` Jan Kiszka
2010-04-13 18:48   ` Blue Swirl
2010-04-13 19:13     ` Blue Swirl

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4BC46169.7020204@siemens.com \
    --to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=paul@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).