linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 10/14] virtio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OFEED174CD.D3C9A726-ON6525789A.002661D5-6525789A.002B26ED@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 13:24:15 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux390@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, steved@...ibm.com,
	Tom Lendacky <tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Shirley Ma <xma@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 10/14] virtio_net: limit xmit polling

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote on 05/23/2011 04:49:00 PM:

> > 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?

Maybe Rusty means it is a simpler model to free the amount
of space that this xmit needs. We will still fail anyway
at some time but it is unlikely, since earlier iteration
freed up atleast the space that it was going to use. The
code could become much simpler:

start_xmit()
{
{
        num_sgs = get num_sgs for this skb;

        /* Free enough pending old buffers to enable queueing this one */
        free_old_xmit_skbs(vi, num_sgs * 2);     /* ?? */

        if (virtqueue_get_capacity() < num_sgs) {
                netif_stop_queue(dev);
                if (virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed(vi->svq) ||
                    free_old_xmit_skbs(vi, num_sgs)) {
                        /* Nothing freed up, or not enough freed up */
                        kfree_skb(skb);
                        return NETDEV_TX_OK;
                }
                netif_start_queue(dev);
                virtqueue_disable_cb(vi->svq);
        }

        /* xmit_skb cannot fail now, also pass 'num_sgs' */
        xmit_skb(vi, skb, num_sgs);
        virtqueue_kick(vi->svq);

        skb_orphan(skb);
        nf_reset(skb);

        return NETDEV_TX_OK;
}

We could even return TX_BUSY since that makes the dequeue
code more efficient. See dev_dequeue_skb() - you can skip a
lot of code (and avoid taking locks) to check if the queue
is already stopped but that code runs only if you return
TX_BUSY in the earlier iteration.

BTW, shouldn't the check in start_xmit be:
	if (likely(!free_old_xmit_skbs(vi, 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS))) {
		...
	}

Thanks,

- KK

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/