From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@eikelenboom.it>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net v2 1/3] xen-netback: remove pointless clause from if statement
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:22:35 +0100
Message-ID: <602920213.20140327202235@eikelenboom.it>
References: <1395924973-42904-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <1395924973-42904-2-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <289461862.20140327144546@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029C992@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <68689563.20140327150256@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029CAA6@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <874580615.20140327174607@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029D28D@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <636041055.20140327181524@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029D498@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <1279623918.20140327193454@eikelenboom.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vserver.eikelenboom.it ([84.200.39.61]:34501 "EHLO
	smtp.eikelenboom.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757057AbaC0TWi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:22:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1279623918.20140327193454@eikelenboom.it>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>


Thursday, March 27, 2014, 7:34:54 PM, you wrote:

> <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

Hmm since i now started to dig around a bit more ..

The ring size seems to be determined by netfront and not by netback ?
Couldn't this lead to problems when PAGE_SIZE dom0 != PAGE_SIZE domU (and potentially lead to a overrun and therefore problems on the HOST) ?

And about the commit message from ca2f09f2b2c6c25047cfc545d057c4edfcfe561c ...
Do i understand it correctly that you saw the original problem (stall on large file copy) only on a "Windows Server 2008R2", probably with PV drivers ?

I don't see why the original calculation wouldn't work, so what kind of packets (nr_frags, frag size and PAGE_SIZE ) caused it ?

And could you retest if that "Windows Server 2008R2" works with a netback with you latest patch series (pessimistic estimate) plus a cap on max_slots_needed like:

if(max_slots_needed > MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1){
        max_slots_needed = MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1;
}