Message-ID: <1279623918.20140327193454@eikelenboom.it>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:34:54 +0100
From:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
CC:	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/3] xen-netback: remove pointless clause from if statement

<big snip>

>> >>
>> >> > So, it may be that the worse-case estimate is now too bad. In the case
>> >> where it's failing for you it would be nice to know what the estimate was
>>
>>
>> > Ok, so we cannot be too pessimistic. In that case I don't see there's a lot
>> > of
>> > choice but to stick with the existing DIV_ROUND_UP (i.e. don't assume
>> > start_new_rx_buffer() returns true every time) and just add the extra 1.
>>
>> Hrmm i don't like a "magic" 1 bonus slot, there must be some theoretical
>> backing.

I don't like it either, but theory suggested each frag should take no more 
space than the original DIV_ROUND_UP and that proved to be wrong, but I cannot 
figure out why.

>> And since the original problem always seemed to occur on a packet with a
>> single large frag, i'm wondering
>> if this 1 would actually be correct in other cases.

That's why I went for an extra 1 per frag... a pessimal slot packing i.e. 2 
byte frag may span 2 slots, PAGE_SIZE + 2 bytes may span 3, etc. etc.

In what situation my a 2 byte frag span 2 slots ?

At least there must be a theoretical cap to the number of slots needed ..
- assuming and SKB can contain only 65535 bytes
- assuming a slot can take max PAGE_SIZE and frags are slit into PAGE_SIZE pieces ..

- it could only max contain 15 PAGE_SIZE slots if nicely aligned ..
- double it ..  and at 30 we wouldn't still be near that 52 estimate and i don't know the ring size
  but wasn't that 32 ? So if the ring get's fully drained we shouldn't stall there.


>> Well this is what i said earlier on .. it's hard to estimate upfront if
>> "start_new_rx_buffer()" will return true,
>> and how many times that is possible per frag .. and if that is possible for
>> only
>> 1 frag or for all frags.
>>
>> The problem is now replaced from packets with 1 large frag (for which it
>> didn't account properly leading to a too small estimate) .. to packets
>> with a large number of (smaller) frags .. leading to a too large over
>> estimation.
>>
>> So would there be a theoretical maximum how often that path could hit
>> based on a combination of sizes (total size of all frags, nr_frags, size per
>> frag)
>> ?
>> - if you hit "start_new_rx_buffer()" == true  in the first frag .. could you
>> hit it
>> in a next frag ?
>> - could it be limited due to something like the packet_size / nr_frags /
>> page_size ?
>>
>> And what was wrong with the previous calculation ?
>>                  int max = DIV_ROUND_UP(vif->dev->mtu, PAGE_SIZE);
>>                  if (vif->can_sg || vif->gso_mask || vif->gso_prefix_mask)
>>                          max += MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1; /* extra_info + frags */
>>

> This is not safe if frag size can be > PAGE_SIZE.

#define MAX_SKB_FRAGS (65536/PAGE_SIZE + 2)

So if one of the frags is > PAGE_SIZE ..
wouldn't that imply that we have nr_frags < MAX_SKB_FRAGS because we are limited by the total packet size ?
(so we would spare a slot since we have a frag less .. but spend one more because we have a frag that needs 2 slots ?)

(and that this should even be pessimistic since we didn't substract the header etc from the max total packet size ?)


So from what i said early, you could probably do the pessimistic estimate (that would help when packets have a small skb->data_len
(space occupied by frags)) so the estimate would be less then the old one based on MAX_SKB_FRAGS causing the packet to be processed earlier.
And CAP it using the old way since a packet should never be able to use more slots than that theoretical max_slots (which hopefully is less than
the ring size, so a packet can always be processed if the ring is finally emptied.


>> That perhaps also misses some theoretical backing, what if it would have
>> (MAX_SKB_FRAGS - 1) nr_frags, but larger ones that have to be split to
>> fit in a slot. Or is the total size of frags a skb can carry limited to
>> MAX_SKB_FRAGS / PAGE_SIZE ? .. than you would expect that
>> MAX_SKB_FRAGS is a upper limit.
>> (and you could do the new check maxed by MAX_SKB_FRAGS so it doesn't
>> get to a too large non reachable estimate).
>>
>> But as a side question .. the whole "get_next_rx_buffer()" path is needed
>> for when a frag could not fit in a slot
>> as a whole ?


> Perhaps it would be best to take the hit on copy_ops and just tightly pack, so
> we only start a new slot when the current one is completely full; then actual
> slots would simply be DIV_ROUND_UP(skb->len, PAGE_SIZE) (+ 1 for the extra if
> it's a GSO).

Don't know if and how much a performance penalty that would be.

>  Paul



--
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