From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sander Eikelenboom Subject: Re: Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network troubles "bisected" Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:49:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1241369584.20140312154946@eikelenboom.it> References: <20140311101948.GX19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> <191977479.20140311133142@eikelenboom.it> <20140311123807.GB19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1068180642.20140311140041@eikelenboom.it> <20140311153616.GE19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1751914199.20140312024243@eikelenboom.it> <20140312113522.GG19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> <659214230.20140312124516@eikelenboom.it> <20140312120444.GH19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> <751560446.20140312152336@eikelenboom.it> <20140312144826.GK19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140312144826.GK19620@zion.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Wei Liu Cc: annie li , Paul Durrant , Zoltan Kiss , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 3:48:26 PM, you wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 03:23:36PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > [...] >> > From the look of the code, 0 looks correct to me. Netback won't complain >> > about "bad gref" because it has no idea what a "good gref" looks like. >> > Only Xen has the knowledge whether a gref is legit. All netback sees is >> > the hypercall fails and it tries to push corresponding response to >> > netfront. But you can probably safely assume a gref larger than several >> > thousands be bad. >> >> OK it's indeed netback setting the status to -1: >> >> [ 976.431585] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:958 >> [ 1030.855057] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? status:-1 meta_slots_used:2 flags:7 size:2974 >> [ 1030.861759] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:0 nr_meta_slots:1 flags:0 size:1460 >> [ 1030.868499] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:958 >> [ 1030.875278] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:2974 >> [ 1068.199650] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? status:-1 meta_slots_used:8 flags:7 size:1634 >> [ 1068.206479] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:0 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:2848 >> [ 1068.213158] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:1 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096 >> [ 1068.219701] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:2 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096 >> [ 1068.226194] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:3 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096 >> [ 1068.232728] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:4 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096 >> [ 1068.239163] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:5 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096 >> [ 1068.245397] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status err? status:-1 i:6 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:0 size:1168 >> [ 1068.251457] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:958 >> >> Now to find out why .. >> > -1 is the error code documented in netif.h, XEN_NETIF_RSP_ERROR. grant copy fails ->> netback sets response status to -1. > Assuming the traffic volumn is quite high both way (TX and RX), probably > worth checking if RX ring is overflowed. That is, if consumer pointer(s) > advance before producer pointer(s). In what function ? > Wei.