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: <902700975.20140328115324@eikelenboom.it>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:53:24 +0100
From:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
CC:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	"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


Friday, March 28, 2014, 11:47:04 AM, you wrote:

>> -----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.

OK send the patch and i will retest immediately just to make sure.

>   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