Message-ID: <20131213191423.GA12582@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:14:23 +0000
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map
 definitions

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:22:38PM +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 13/12/13 15:31, Wei Liu wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:48:09PM +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> >>This patch contains the new definitions necessary for grant mapping.
> >>
> >>v2:
> >>- move unmapping to separate thread. The NAPI instance has to be scheduled
> >>   even from thread context, which can cause huge delays
> >>- that causes unfortunately bigger struct xenvif
> >>- store grant handle after checking validity
> >>
> >
> >If the size of xenvif really becomes a problem, you can try to make
> >sratch space like struct gnttab_copy per-cpu. The downside is that
> >approach requires much coding and carefully guard against race
> >conditions. You would need to consider cost v.s. benefit.
> 
> I mentioned this because for the first series I had comments that I
> should be more vigilant about this. At that time there was a problem
> with struct xenvif allocation which was solved by now. My quick
> calculation showed this patch will increase the size with ~15kb
> 

15kb doesn't seem a lot. And the fragmentation problem causing
allocation failure was fixed. So I guess this won't be a problem.

> >
> >>Signed-off-by: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
> >>
> >>---
> >[...]
> >>  #define XENVIF_QUEUE_LENGTH 32
> >>  #define XENVIF_NAPI_WEIGHT  64
> >>diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> >>index c1b7a42..3ddc474 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> >>@@ -772,6 +772,20 @@ static struct page *xenvif_alloc_page(struct xenvif *vif,
> >>  	return page;
> >>  }
> >>
> >>+static inline void xenvif_tx_create_gop(struct xenvif *vif, u16 pending_idx,
> >>+	       struct xen_netif_tx_request *txp,
> >>+	       struct gnttab_map_grant_ref *gop)
> >>+{
> >>+	vif->pages_to_map[gop-vif->tx_map_ops] = vif->mmap_pages[pending_idx];
> >>+	gnttab_set_map_op(gop, idx_to_kaddr(vif, pending_idx),
> >>+			  GNTMAP_host_map | GNTMAP_readonly,
> >>+			  txp->gref, vif->domid);
> >>+
> >>+	memcpy(&vif->pending_tx_info[pending_idx].req, txp,
> >>+	       sizeof(*txp));
> >>+
> >>+}
> >>+
> >
> >This helper function is not used until next patch. Probably you can move
> >it to the second patch.
> >
> >The same applies to other helper functions as well. Move them to the
> >patch they are used. It would be easier for people to review.
> I just moved them here because the second patch is already huge, and
> I couldn't have an idea to splice it up while keeping it bisectable
> and logically consistent. As I mentioned, I welcome ideas about
> that.
> 

My personal idea would be for a new feature it is not the size of a
patch matters most, it's the logic matters most. So I'm fine with long
consolidated patches. The incremental changes you made makes the patches
hard to review IMHO.

That's merely my personal opinion. Let's see what other people say.

> >
> >>  static struct gnttab_copy *xenvif_get_requests(struct xenvif *vif,
> >>  					       struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>  					       struct xen_netif_tx_request *txp,
> >>@@ -1593,6 +1607,106 @@ static int xenvif_tx_submit(struct xenvif *vif)
> >>  	return work_done;
> >>  }
> >>
> >>+void xenvif_zerocopy_callback(struct ubuf_info *ubuf, bool zerocopy_success)
> >>+{
> >
> >Do we care about zerocopy_success? I don't see it used in this function.
> It will be used in the 5th patch. Anyway, it's in the definition of
> the zerocopy callback.
> 

Oh right, it is actually used. Then you should rearrange you series.
Move the patches to add stats before this one, then provide a single
patch for functions instead of making incremental changes.

> >
> >>+	unsigned long flags;
> >>+	pending_ring_idx_t index;
> >>+	u16 pending_idx = ubuf->desc;
> >>+	struct pending_tx_info *temp =
> >>+		container_of(ubuf, struct pending_tx_info, callback_struct);
> >>+	struct xenvif *vif =
> >>+		container_of(temp - pending_idx, struct xenvif,
> >>+			pending_tx_info[0]);
> >>+
> >
> >The third parameter to container_of should be the name of the member
> >within the struct.
> Here we have the pending_idx, so we get a pointer for the holding
> struct pending_tx_info, then for the beginning of pending_tx_info
> (temp - pending_idx), and then to the struct xenvif. It's a bit
> tricky and not straightforward, I admit :)
> 

Well, macro trick. :-)

> >
> >>+	spin_lock_irqsave(&vif->dealloc_lock, flags);
> >>+	do {
> >>+		pending_idx = ubuf->desc;
> >>+		ubuf = (struct ubuf_info *) ubuf->ctx;
> >>+		index = pending_index(vif->dealloc_prod);
> >>+		vif->dealloc_ring[index] = pending_idx;
> >>+		/* Sync with xenvif_tx_action_dealloc:
> >>+		 * insert idx then incr producer.
> >>+		 */
> >>+		smp_wmb();
> >>+		vif->dealloc_prod++;
> >>+	} while (ubuf);
> >>+	wake_up(&vif->dealloc_wq);
> >>+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vif->dealloc_lock, flags);
[...]
> >
> >>+		smp_rmb();
> >>+
> >>+		while (dc != dp) {
> >>+			pending_idx =
> >>+				vif->dealloc_ring[pending_index(dc++)];
> >>+
> >>+			/* Already unmapped? */
> >>+			if (vif->grant_tx_handle[pending_idx] ==
> >>+				NETBACK_INVALID_HANDLE) {
> >>+				netdev_err(vif->dev,
> >>+					"Trying to unmap invalid handle! "
> >>+					"pending_idx: %x\n", pending_idx);
> >>+				continue;
> >>+			}
> >
> >Should this be BUG_ON? AIUI this kthread should be the only one doing
> >unmap, right?
> The NAPI instance can do it as well if it is a small packet fits
> into PKT_PROT_LEN. But still this scenario shouldn't really happen,
> I was just not sure we have to crash immediately. Maybe handle it as
> a fatal error and destroy the vif?
> 

It depends. If this is within the trust boundary, i.e. everything at the
stage should have been sanitized then we should BUG_ON because there's
clearly a bug somewhere in the sanitization process, or in the
interaction of various backend routines.

Wei.

--
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