netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] virtio-net: use per-receive queue page frag alloc for mergeable bufs

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: <20140108185725.GA18276@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:57:25 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Michael Dalton <mwdalton@...gle.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	lf-virt <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] virtio-net: use per-receive queue page frag
 alloc for mergeable bufs

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:09:47AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 19:21 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > Basically yes, we could start dropping packets immediately
> > once GFP_ATOMIC allocations fail and repost the buffer to host,
> > and hope memory is available by the time we get the next interrupt.
> 
> > But we wanted host to have visibility into the fact that
> > we are out of memory and packets are dropped, so we did not want to
> > repost.
> 
> bufferbloat alert :)
>

I guess you are saying we never need to signal host/device
that we are out of memory, it's enough that packets are dropped?
It seemed like a useful thing for hypervisor to know about on general
principles, even though I don't think kvm uses this info at this point.

> > If we don't repost how do we know memory is finally available?
> > We went for a timer based workqueue thing.
> > What do you suggest?
> 
> 
> In normal networking land, when a host A sends frames to host B,
> nothing prevents A to pause the traffic to B if B is dropping packets
> under stress.
> 
> A physical NIC do not use a workqueue to refill its RX queue but uses
> the following strategy :
> 
> 0) Pre filling of RX ring buffer with N frames. This can use GFP_KERNEL
>    allocations with all needed (sleep/retry/shout) logic...
> 1) IRQ is handled.
> 2) Can we allocate a new buffer (GFP_ATOMIC) ?
>    If yes, we accept the frame,
>       and post the new buffer for the 'next frame'
>    If no, we drop the frame and recycle the memory for next round.
> 

Exactly, this is what I tried to describe in the part that
you have snipped out - but this means queue is always full.

Also, I wonder whether allocating before passing
frame to the stack might slow us down a tiny bit e.g. if an application
is polling this socket on another CPU.

Maybe a slightly better strategy is to do the above when queue depth
is running low. E.g. when queue is 3/4 empty, try
allocating before giving frames to net core,
and recycle buffers on error.

Not sure how much of a win this is.

-- 
MST
--
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