From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Sender: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Received: from lists.oasis-open.org (oasis-open.org [10.110.1.242]) by lists.oasis-open.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F43986350 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 23:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 18:59:50 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20220809185747-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <465efc4c-f41f-494e-8f2d-a87deae90c5d@nvidia.com> <06bf192a-d310-943e-bbe1-1c53108db892@oracle.com> <3b87cc07-525a-6753-6224-37ebc2503e65@oracle.com> <20220809173542-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220809182306-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio-net: use mtu size as buffer length for big packets Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To: Parav Pandit Cc: Si-Wei Liu , Jason Wang , Gavin Li , "Hemminger, Stephen" , davem , virtualization , Virtio-Dev , "jesse.brandeburg@intel.com" , "alexander.h.duyck@intel.com" , "kubakici@wp.pl" , "sridhar.samudrala@intel.com" , "loseweigh@gmail.com" , Gavi Teitz List-ID: On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 10:49:48PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin > > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 6:26 PM > > To: Parav Pandit > > Cc: Si-Wei Liu ; Jason Wang > > ; Gavin Li ; Hemminger, > > Stephen ; davem > > ; virtualization > foundation.org>; Virtio-Dev ; > > jesse.brandeburg@intel.com; alexander.h.duyck@intel.com; > > kubakici@wp.pl; sridhar.samudrala@intel.com; loseweigh@gmail.com; Gavi > > Teitz > > Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio-net: use mtu size as buffer length for > > big packets > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 09:49:03PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 5:38 PM > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > I think virtio-net driver doesn't differentiate MTU and MRU, in > > > > > > which case the receive buffer will be reduced to fit the 1500B > > > > > > payload size when mtu is lowered down to 1500 from 9000. > > > > > How? Driver reduced the mXu to 1500, say it is improved to post > > > > > buffers of > > > > 1500 bytes. > > > > > > > > > > Device doesn't know about it because mtu in config space is RO field. > > > > > Device keep dropping 9K packets because buffers posted are 1500 > > bytes. > > > > > This is because device follows the spec " The device MUST NOT pass > > > > received packets that exceed mtu". > > > > > > > > > > > > The "mtu" here is the device config field, which is > > > > > > > > /* Default maximum transmit unit advice */ > > > > > > > > > > It is the field from struct virtio_net_config.mtu. right? > > > This is RO field for driver. > > > > > > > there is no guarantee device will not get a bigger packet. > > > Right. That is what I also hinted. > > > Hence, allocating buffers worth upto mtu is safer. > > > > yes > > > > > When user overrides it, driver can be further optimized to honor such new > > value on rx buffer posting. > > > > no, not without a feature bit promising device won't get wedged. > > > I mean to say as_it_stands today, driver can decide to post smaller buffers with larger mtu. > Why device should be affected with it? > ( I am not proposing such weird configuration but asking for sake of correctness). They just are because drivers did not do this. > > > > And there is no guarantee such a packet will be dropped as opposed > > > > to wedging the device if userspace insists on adding smaller buffers. > > > > > > > If user space insists on small buffers, so be it. > > > > If previously things worked, the "so be it" is a regression and blaming users > > won't help us. > > > I am not suggesting above. > This was Si-Wei's suggestion that somehow driver wants to post smaller buffers than the mtu because user knows what peer is doing. > So may be driver can be extended to give more weight on user config. > > > > It only works when user exactly know what user is doing in the whole > > network. > > > > If you want to claim this you need a new feature bit. > > > Why is a new bit needed to tell device? > User is doing something its own config mismatching the buffers and mtu. > A solid use case hasn't emerged for this yet. > > If user wants to modify the mtu, we should just make virtio_net_config.mtu as RW field using new feature bit. > Is that what you mean? > If so, yes, it makes things very neat where driver and device are aligned to each other, the way they are today. > Only limitation is that its one-way. = device tells to driver. > > > > When user prefers to override the device RO field, device is in the dark and > > things work on best effort basis. > > > > Dropping packets is best effort. Getting stuck forever isn't, that's a quality of > > implementation issue. > > > Not sure, why things get stuck for ever. Maybe you have example to explain. > I am mostly missing something. I sent an explanation a bit earlier. It's more or less a bug. > > > This must be a reasonably advance user who has good knowledge of its > > network topology etc. > > > > > > For such case, may be yes, driver should be further optimized. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org