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: <alpine.WNT.2.00.0906161458590.6404@jbrandeb-MOBL3.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:02:24 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] ixgbe: fix multi-ring polling [V2]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > > When looking at ixgbe_clean_rxtx_many I noticed two small problems.
> > > 
> > >  - work_done needs to be cleared before calling ixgbe_clean_rx_irq since
> > >    it will exit without cleaning any buffers when work_done is greater
> > >    than budget (which could happen pretty often after the first ring is
> > >    cleaned).  A total count will ensure we still return the correct
> > >    number of frames processed.
> > 
> > but (not seen in the below patch) the budget is divided by the number of 
> > rings on this vector before it is passed to rx_clean, so each ring will 
> > always get a chance to clean at least one buffer.
> > 
> 
> Not by my reading of ixgbe_clean_rx_irq (which could be wrong, but I've
> looked again to be sure).  If we have 2 rings that need to be cleaned
> and a budget of 64 passed into ixgbe_clean_rxtx_many, then budget will
> be 32 inside the loop.  If the system is busy and there are more than 32
> buffers that need to be cleaned on the first ring ixgbe_clean_rx_irq
> will not break until work_done is 32.  When the second ring is polled,
> work_done is already 32 and so is budget.  The while loop in
> ixgbe_clean_rx_irq will break immediately and nothing will be cleaned on
> the second ring.  Let me know if I'm missing something.

ah, you're right, the second loop will already have work_done set, so it 
should be cleared each loop as your patch does.

> > >  - napi_complete should only be called if all rings associated with this
> > >    napi instance were cleaned completely.  It seems wise to stay on the
> > >    poll-list if not completely cleaned.
> > 
> > that part I agree to.
> > 
> > > 
> > > This has been compile tested only.
> > 
> > we can test it but I think we need a V2, see below...
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  ixgbe_main.c |   11 +++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> > > index a551a96..c009642 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c
> > > @@ -1362,9 +1362,9 @@ static int ixgbe_clean_rxtx_many(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > >  	                       container_of(napi, struct ixgbe_q_vector, napi);
> > >  	struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter = q_vector->adapter;
> > >  	struct ixgbe_ring *ring = NULL;
> > > -	int work_done = 0, i;
> > > +	int work_done = 0, total_work = 0, i;
> > >  	long r_idx;
> > > -	bool tx_clean_complete = true;
> > > +	bool rx_clean_complete = true, tx_clean_complete = true;
> > >  
> > >  	r_idx = find_first_bit(q_vector->txr_idx, adapter->num_tx_queues);
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < q_vector->txr_count; i++) {
> > > @@ -1384,12 +1384,15 @@ static int ixgbe_clean_rxtx_many(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > >  	budget = max(budget, 1);
> > >  	r_idx = find_first_bit(q_vector->rxr_idx, adapter->num_rx_queues);
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < q_vector->rxr_count; i++) {
> > > +		work_done = 0;
> > >  		ring = &(adapter->rx_ring[r_idx]);
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_IXGBE_DCA
> > >  		if (adapter->flags & IXGBE_FLAG_DCA_ENABLED)
> > >  			ixgbe_update_rx_dca(adapter, ring);
> > >  #endif
> > >  		ixgbe_clean_rx_irq(q_vector, ring, &work_done, budget);
> > > +		total_work += work_done;
> > > +		rx_clean_complete &= (work_done < budget);
> > >  		r_idx = find_next_bit(q_vector->rxr_idx, adapter->num_rx_queues,
> > >  		                      r_idx + 1);
> > >  	}
> > > @@ -1397,7 +1400,7 @@ static int ixgbe_clean_rxtx_many(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > >  	r_idx = find_first_bit(q_vector->rxr_idx, adapter->num_rx_queues);
> > >  	ring = &(adapter->rx_ring[r_idx]);
> > >  	/* If all Rx work done, exit the polling mode */
> > > -	if (work_done < budget) {
> > > +	if (rx_clean_complete && tx_clean_complete) {
> > >  		napi_complete(napi);
> > >  		if (adapter->itr_setting & 1)
> > >  			ixgbe_set_itr_msix(q_vector);
> > > @@ -1407,7 +1410,7 @@ static int ixgbe_clean_rxtx_many(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > >  		return 0;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	return work_done;
> > > +	return total_work;
> > 
> > I don't think you can return total_work here unless it is always
> >  == budget, otherwise NAPI will hang.
> > 
> > before the only values that would ever be returned were:
> >  
> > 1) napi_complete, return work_done (work_done < budget)
> > 2) return work_done (work_done >= budget)
> > 
> > I'm not sure if the > case is even valid in the new napi model, the only 
> > one we ever use is the work_done == budget to continue polling.
> > 
> 
> Adding a check is no problem, but that means we need to save the
> original budget.  It would be good to do that to avoid the WARN_ON_ONCE
> in net_rx_action as well, but should we be cheating like that?  Here's
> the new patch:

I hope davem can comment on that.

> [PATCH net-next-2.6] ixgbe: fix multi-ring polling V2

I think technically I'm okay with V2, the outstanding questions about what 
exactly we should return need to be answered.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ