netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

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: <20240619041211-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 04:17:37 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
	xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, dave.taht@...il.com,
	kerneljasonxing@...il.com, hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:05:41AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 09:26:22AM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 07:45:16AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 08:18:12PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >> >This looks like a sensible way to do this.
> >> >Yet something to improve:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 04:44:56PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> >> >> 
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >> +static void __free_old_xmit(struct send_queue *sq, struct netdev_queue *txq,
> >> >> +			    bool in_napi, struct virtnet_sq_free_stats *stats)
> >> >>  {
> >> >>  	unsigned int len;
> >> >>  	void *ptr;
> >> >>  
> >> >>  	while ((ptr = virtqueue_get_buf(sq->vq, &len)) != NULL) {
> >> >> -		++stats->packets;
> >> >> -
> >> >>  		if (!is_xdp_frame(ptr)) {
> >> >> -			struct sk_buff *skb = ptr;
> >> >> +			struct sk_buff *skb = ptr_to_skb(ptr);
> >> >>  
> >> >>  			pr_debug("Sent skb %p\n", skb);
> >> >>  
> >> >> -			stats->bytes += skb->len;
> >> >> +			if (is_orphan_skb(ptr)) {
> >> >> +				stats->packets++;
> >> >> +				stats->bytes += skb->len;
> >> >> +			} else {
> >> >> +				stats->napi_packets++;
> >> >> +				stats->napi_bytes += skb->len;
> >> >> +			}
> >> >>  			napi_consume_skb(skb, in_napi);
> >> >>  		} else {
> >> >>  			struct xdp_frame *frame = ptr_to_xdp(ptr);
> >> >>  
> >> >> +			stats->packets++;
> >> >>  			stats->bytes += xdp_get_frame_len(frame);
> >> >>  			xdp_return_frame(frame);
> >> >>  		}
> >> >>  	}
> >> >> +	netdev_tx_completed_queue(txq, stats->napi_packets, stats->napi_bytes);
> >> >
> >> >Are you sure it's right? You are completing larger and larger
> >> >number of bytes and packets each time.
> >> 
> >> Not sure I get you. __free_old_xmit() is always called with stats
> >> zeroed. So this is just sum-up of one queue completion run.
> >> I don't see how this could become "larger and larger number" as you
> >> describe.
> >
> >Oh. Right of course. Worth a comment maybe? Just to make sure
> >we remember not to call __free_old_xmit twice in a row
> >without reinitializing stats.
> >Or move the initialization into __free_old_xmit to make it
> >self-contained ..
> 
> Well, the initialization happens in the caller by {0}, Wouldn't
> memset in __free_old_xmit() add an extra overhead? IDK.
> Perhaps a small comment in __free_old_xmit() would do better.
> 
> One way or another, I think this is parallel to this patchset. Will
> handle it separatelly if you don't mind.


Okay.


Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>


> >WDYT?
> >
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >For example as won't this eventually trigger this inside dql_completed:
> >> >
> >> >        BUG_ON(count > num_queued - dql->num_completed);
> >> 
> >> Nope, I don't see how we can hit it. Do not complete anything else
> >> in addition to what was started in xmit(). Am I missing something?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >If I am right the perf testing has to be redone with this fixed ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>  }
> >> >>  
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >