Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:06:41 +0100
From:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>,
	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network troubles "bisected"


Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 4:50:30 PM, you wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@...elenboom.it]
>> Sent: 26 March 2014 15:23
>> To: Paul Durrant
>> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; Ian Campbell; linux-
>> kernel; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
>> troubles "bisected"
>> 
>> 
>> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 3:44:42 PM, you wrote:
>> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@...elenboom.it]
>> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 11:11
>> >> To: Paul Durrant
>> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@...ts.xen.org; Ian Campbell;
>> linux-
>> >> kernel; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network
>> >> troubles "bisected"
>> >>
>> >> Paul,
>> >>
>> >> You have been awfully silent for this whole thread while this is a
>> regression
>> >> caused by a patch of you
>> >> (ca2f09f2b2c6c25047cfc545d057c4edfcfe561c as clearly stated much earlier
>> in
>> >> this thread).
>> >>
>> 
>> > Sorry, I've been distracted...
>> 
>> >> The commit messages states:
>> >>     "net_rx_action() is the place where we could do with an accurate
>> >> predicition but,
>> >>     since that has proven tricky to calculate, a cheap worse-case (but not
>> too
>> >> bad)
>> >>     estimate is all we really need since the only thing we *must* prevent is
>> >> xenvif_gop_skb()
>> >>     consuming more slots than are available."
>> >>
>> >> Your "worst-case" calculation stated in the commit message is clearly not
>> the
>> >> worst case,
>> >> since it doesn't take calls to "get_next_rx_buffer" into account.
>> >>
>> 
>> > It should be taking into account the behaviour of start_new_rx_buffer(),
>> which should be true if a slot is full or a frag will overflow the current slot and
>> doesn't require splitting.
>> > The code in net_rx_action() makes the assumption that each frag will
>> require as many slots as its size requires, i.e. it assumes no packing of
>> multiple frags into a single slot, so it should be a worst case.
>> > Did I miss something in that logic?
>> 
>> Yes.
>> In "xenvif_gop_skb()" this loop:
>> 
>>         for (i = 0; i < nr_frags; i++) {
>>                 xenvif_gop_frag_copy(vif, skb, npo,
>>                                      skb_frag_page(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]),
>>                                      skb_frag_size(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]),
>>                                      skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i].page_offset,
>>                                      &head);
>>         }
>> 
>> Is capable of using up (at least) 1 slot more than is anticipated for in
>> "net_rx_action()"  by this code:
>> 
>>                 for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) {
>>                         unsigned int size;
>>                         size = skb_frag_size(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]);
>>                         max_slots_needed += DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE);
>>                 }
>> 
>> And this happens when it calls "get_next_rx_buffer()" from
>> "xenvif_gop_frag_copy()" where it's breaking down the frag.
>> 

> The function that determines whether to consume another slot is start_new_rx_buffer() and for each frag I don't see why this would return true more than DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE) times.
> It may be called more times than that since the code in xenvif_gop_frag_copy() must also allow for the offset of the frag but should not return true in all cases.
> So, I still cannot see why a frag would ever consume more than DIV_ROUND_UP(size, PAGE_SIZE) slots.

Well here a case were a frag is broken down in 2 pieces:

[ 1156.870372] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here 1  npo->meta_prod:39 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105867 npo->copy_gref:760  npo->copy_off:4096  MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:560 size:560  offset:0 head:1273462060 i:2 vif->rx.sring->req_event:2104275 estimated_slots_needed:4 reserved_slots_left:0
[ 1156.871971] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue !  min_slots_needed:1 min_slots_needed_2:0 min_slots_needed_3:0 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105867 vif->rx.sring->req_event:2105868 skb->len:66 skb->data_len:0
[ 1156.964316] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? get_next_rx_buffer before req npo->meta_prod:39 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105867 vif->rx.sring->req_event:2105868, reserved_slots_left:0
[ 1157.001635] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? get_next_rx_buffer after req npo->meta_prod:39 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105868 req->gref:4325379 req->id:11 vif->rx.sring->req_event:2105868 reserved_slots_left:-1
[ 1157.039095] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here 2  npo->meta_prod:40 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105868 npo->copy_gref:4325379  npo->copy_off:0  MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:560 size:560  offset:0 head:1273462060 i:2 vif->rx.sring->req_event:2105868 estimated_slots_needed:4 reserved_slots_left:-1
[ 1157.095216] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here end npo->meta_prod:40 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105868 npo->copy_gref:4325379 npo->copy_off:560  MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:560 size:0  offset:560 head:1273462060 i:3 vif->rx.sring->req_event:2105868 gso_gaps:0 estimated_slots_needed:4 reserved_slots_left:-1
[ 1157.151338] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 4 after npo->meta_prod:40 old_meta_prod:36 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105868 meta->gso_type:1 meta->gso_size:1448 nr_frags:1 req->gref:657 req->id:7 estimated_slots_needed:4 i(frag):0 j(data):1 reserved_slots_left:-1
[ 1157.188908] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 5 npo->meta_prod:40 old_meta_prod:36 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105868 meta->gso_type:1 meta->gso_size:1448 nr_frags:1 req->gref:657 req->id:7 estimated_slots_needed:4 j(data):1 reserved_slots_left:-1    used in funcstart: 0 + 1 .. used_dataloop:1 .. used_fragloop:3
[ 1157.244975] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action me here 2 ..  vif->rx.sring->req_prod:2105867 vif->rx.req_cons:2105868 sco->meta_slots_used:4 max_upped_gso:1 skb_is_gso(skb):1 max_slots_needed:4 j:6 is_gso:1 nr_frags:1 firstpart:1 secondpart:2 reserved_slots_left:-1

- When processing an SKB we end up in "xenvif_gop_frag_copy" while prod == cons ... but we still have bytes and size left ..
- start_new_rx_buffer() has returned true ..
- so we end up in get_next_rx_buffer
- this does a RING_GET_REQUEST and ups cons ..
- and we end up with a bad grant reference.

Sometimes we are saved by the bell .. since additional slots have become free (you see cons become > prod in "get_next_rx_buffer" but shortly after that prod is increased ..
just in time to not cause a overrun).

If you need additional / other info, please cook up a debug patch with what you need.

--
Sander






>   Paul

>> Ultimately this results in bad grant reference warnings (and packets marked
>> as "errors" in the interface statistics).
>> 
>> In my case it always seems to be a skb with 1 frag which is broken down in 5
>> or 6 pieces ..
>> 
>> So "get_next_rx_buffer()" is called once .. and i'm overrunning the ring with
>> 1 slot, but i'm not sure if that's not coincedence
>> since in the code there seem to be no explicit limitation on how often this
>> code path is taken. So perhaps it's implicitly limited
>> since packets and frags can't be arbitrarily large in comparison with the
>> page_size but that's not something i'm capable of figuring out :-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >   Paul
>> 
>> >> Problem is that a worst case calculation would probably be reverting to
>> the
>> >> old calculation,
>> >> and the problems this patch was trying to solve would reappear, but
>> >> introducing new regressions
>> >> isn't very useful either. And since it seems such a tricky and fragile thing to
>> >> determine, it would
>> >> probably be best to be split into a distinct function with a comment to
>> explain
>> >> the rationale used.
>> >>
>> >> Since this doesn't seem to progress very fast .. CC'ed some more folks ..
>> you
>> >> never know ..
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sander
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 4:29:42 PM, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 4:15:39 PM, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 07:28:34PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >>> > Yes there is only one frag .. but it seems to be much larger than
>> >> PAGE_SIZE .. and xenvif_gop_frag_copy brakes that frag down into
>> smaller
>> >> bits .. hence the calculation in xenvif_rx_action determining the slots
>> needed
>> >> by doing:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >                 for (i = 0; i < nr_frags; i++) {
>> >> >>> >                         unsigned int size;
>> >> >>> >                         size = skb_frag_size(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i]);
>> >> >>> >                         max_slots_needed += DIV_ROUND_UP(size,
>> PAGE_SIZE);
>> >> >>> >                 }
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > But the code in xenvif_gop_frag_copy .. seems to be needing one
>> >> more slot (from the emperical test) .. and calling "get_next_rx_buffer"
>> >> seems involved in that ..
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hmm looked again .. and it seems this is it .. when your frags are large
>> >> enough you have the chance of running into this.
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >> >> get_next_rx_buffer is guarded by start_new_rx_buffer. Do you see
>> any
>> >> >> problem with that implementation?
>> >> > In general no, but "get_next_rx_buffer" up's cons .. and the calculations
>> >> done in "xenvif_rx_action" for max_slots_needed to prevent the overrun
>> >> > don't count in this possibility. So it's not the guarding of
>> >> "start_new_rx_buffer" that is at fault. It's the ones early in
>> >> "xenvif_rx_action".
>> >> > The ones that were changed by Paul's patch from MAX_SKB_FRAGS to a
>> >> calculated value that should be a "slim fit".
>> >>
>> >> > The problem is in determining upfront in "xenvif_rx_action" when and
>> how
>> >> often the "get_next_rx_buffer" path will be taken.
>> >> > Unless there are other non direct restrictions (from a size point of view)
>> it
>> >> can be called multiple times per frag per skb.
>> >>
>> >> >>> Problem is .. i don't see an easy fix, the "one more slot" of the
>> empirical
>> >> test doesn't seem to be the worst case either (i think):
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - In my case the packets that hit this only have 1 frag, but i could have
>> >> had more frags.
>> >> >>>   I also think you can't rule out the possibility of doing the
>> >> "get_next_rx_buffer" for multiple subsequent frags from one packet,
>> >> >>>   so in the worst (and perhaps even from a single frag since it's looped
>> >> over a split of it in what seems PAGE_SIZE pieces.)
>> >> >>>   - So an exact calculation of how much slots we are going to need for
>> >> hitting this "get_next_rx_buffer"  upfront in "xenvif_rx_action" seems
>> >> unfeasible.
>> >> >>>   - A worst case gamble seems impossible either .. if you take multiple
>> >> frags * multiple times the "get_next_rx_buffer" ... you would probably be
>> >> back at just
>> >> >>>     setting the needed_slots to MAX_SKB_FRAGS.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - Other thing would be checking for the available slots before doing
>> the
>> >> "get_next_rx_buffer" .. how ever .. we don't account for how many slots
>> we
>> >> still need to
>> >> >>>   just process the remaining frags.
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >> >> We've done a worst case estimation for whole SKB (linear area + all
>> >> >> frags) already, at the very first beginning. That's what
>> >> >> max_slots_needed is for.
>> >>
>> >> >>> - Just remove the whole "get_next_rx_buffer".. just tested it but it
>> >> seems the "get_next_rx_buffer" is necessary ..  when i make
>> >> start_new_rx_buffer always return false
>> >> >>>   i hit the bug below :S
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So the questions are ... is the "get_next_rx_buffer" part really
>> necessary
>> >> ?
>> >> >>>    - if not, what is the benefit of the "get_next_rx_buffer" and does
>> that
>> >> outweigh the additional cost of accounting
>> >> >>>      of needed_slots for the frags that have yet to be processed ?
>> >> >>>    - if yes, erhmmm what would be the best acceptable solution ..
>> >> returning to using MAX_SKB_FRAGS ?
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>> >> >> I think you need to answer several questions first:
>> >> >> 1. is max_slots_needed actually large enough to cover whole SKB?
>> >> >         No it's not if, you end up calling "get_next_rx_buffer" one or
>> multiple
>> >> times when processing the SKB
>> >> >         you have the chance of overrunning (or be saved because prod gets
>> >> upped before you overrun).
>> >>
>> >> >> 2. is the test of ring slot availability acurate?
>> >> >         Seems to be.
>> >>
>> >> >> 3. is the number of ring slots consumed larger than
>> max_slots_needed? (I
>> >> >>    guess the answer is yes)
>> >> >         Yes that was the whole point.
>> >>
>> >> >> 4. which step in the break-down procedure causes backend to overrun
>> >> the
>> >> >>    ring?
>> >> >         The "get_next_rx_buffer" call .. that is not accounted for (which can
>> be
>> >> called
>> >> >         multiple times per frag (unless some other none obvious size
>> >> restriction limits this
>> >> >         to one time per frag or one time per SKB).
>> >> >         In my errorneous case it is called one time, but it would be nice if
>> there
>> >> would be some theoretical proof
>> >> >         instead of just some emperical test.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> It doesn't matter how many frags your SKB has and how big a frag is. If
>> >> >> every step is correct then you're fine. The code you're looking at
>> >> >> (start_new_rx_buffer / get_next_rx_buffer and friend) needs to be
>> >> >> carefully examined.
>> >>
>> >> > Well it seems it only calls "get_next_rx_buffer" in some special cases ..
>> >> (and that also what i'm seeing because it doesn't happen
>> >> > continously.
>> >>
>> >> > Question is shouldn't this max_needed_slots calc be reverted to what it
>> >> was before 3.14 and take the time in 3.15 to figure out a
>> >> > the theoretical max (if it can be calculated upfront) .. or another way to
>> >> guarantee the code is able to process the whole SKB  ?
>> >>
>> >> >> 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