netdev - RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net v2 1/3] xen-netback: remove pointless clause from if statement

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: <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029E25B@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:47:04 +0000
From:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
To:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net v2 1/3] xen-netback: remove pointless
 clause from if statement

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sander Eikelenboom
> Sent: 28 March 2014 10:43
> To: David Laight
> Cc: Paul Durrant; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Wei Liu; Ian Campbell; xen-
> devel@...ts.xen.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net v2 1/3] xen-netback: remove pointless
> clause from if statement
> 
> 
> Friday, March 28, 2014, 11:35:58 AM, you wrote:
> 
> > From: Paul Durrant
> >> > A reasonable high estimate for the number of slots required for a
> specific
> >> > message is 'frag_count + total_size/4096'.
> >> > So if that are that many slots free it is definitely ok to add the message.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm, that may work. By total_size, I assume you mean skb->len, so that
> calculation is based on an
> >> overhead of 1 non-optimally packed slot per frag. There'd still need to be
> a +1 for the GSO 'extra'
> >> though.
> 
> > Except I meant '2 * frag_count + size/4096' :-(
> 
> > You have to assume that every fragment starts at n*4096-1 (so need
> > at least two slots). A third slot is only needed for fragments
> > longer that 1+4096+2 - but an extra one is needed for every
> > 4096 bytes after that.
> 
> He did that in his followup patch series .. that works .. for small packets
> But for larger ones it's an extremely wasteful estimate and it quickly get
> larger than the MAX_SKB_FRAGS
> we had before and even to large causing stalls. I tried doing this type of
> calculation with a CAP of
> the old  MAX_SKB_FRAGS calculation and that works.
> 

Given that works for you and caps the estimate at the old constant value I guess that's the modification to go for to handle this regression. I'll try to come up with something better for net-next.

  Paul

> However since the calculated max_needed_slots grow so fast (most of the
> time unnecessary, i put a printk in there for that and it was quite often more
> than 5 slots off),
> that is also wasteful and it uses a more complex calculation.
> 
> 
> >         David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
--
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