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, 26 Mar 2014 18:33:04 +0100 Message-ID: <966386043.20140326183304__19371.978499885$1395855286$gmane$org@eikelenboom.it> References: <1744594108.20140318162127@eikelenboom.it> <20140318160412.GB16807@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1701035622.20140318211402@eikelenboom.it> <722971844.20140318221859@eikelenboom.it> <1688396550.20140319001104@eikelenboom.it> <20140319113532.GD16807@zion.uk.xensource.com> <246793256.20140319220752@eikelenboom.it> <20140321164958.GA31766@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1334202265.20140321182727@eikelenboom.it> <1056661597.20140322192834@eikelenboom.it> <20140325151539.GG31766@zion.uk.xensource.com> <79975567.20140325162942@eikelenboom.it> <1972209744.20140326121116@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029AD94@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <1715463578.20140326162245@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029AFC1@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <799579453.20140326170641@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029B106@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> <789809468.20140326175352@eikelenboom.it> <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029B277@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD029B277@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Paul Durrant Cc: Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , annie li , Zoltan Kiss List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Paul, Seems your last mail arrived in pretty bad shape (truncated) in my mailbox .. -- Sander Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 6:16:49 PM, you wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it] >> Sent: 26 March 2014 16:54 >> To: Paul Durrant >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell; linux- >> kernel; netdev@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 5:25:21 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it] >> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 16:07 >> >> To: Paul Durrant >> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell; >> linux- >> >> kernel; netdev@vger.kernel.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network >> >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 4:50:30 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it] >> >> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 15:23 >> >> >> To: Paul Durrant >> >> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Ian Campbell; >> >> linux- >> >> >> kernel; netdev@vger.kernel.org >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network >> >> >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 3:44:42 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> From: Sander Eikelenboom [mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it] >> >> >> >> Sent: 26 March 2014 11:11 >> >> >> >> To: Paul Durrant >> >> >> >> Cc: Wei Liu; annie li; Zoltan Kiss; xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Ian >> Campbell; >> >> >> linux- >> >> >> >> kernel; netdev@vger.kernel.org >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 >> Network >> >> >> >> troubles "bisected" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You have been awfully silent for this whole thread while this is a >> >> >> regression >> >> >> >> caused by a patch of you >> >> >> >> (ca2f09f2b2c6c25047cfc545d057c4edfcfe561c as clearly stated much >> >> earlier >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> this thread). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sorry, I've been distracted... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The commit messages states: >> >> >> >> "net_rx_action() is the place where we could do with an accurate >> >> >> >> predicition but, >> >> >> >> since that has proven tricky to calculate, a cheap worse-case (but >> not >> >> >> too >> >> >> >> bad) >> >> >> >> estimate is all we really need since the only thing we *must* >> prevent >> >> is >> >> >> >> xenvif_gop_skb() >> >> >> >> consuming more slots than are available." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your "worst-case" calculation stated in the commit message is >> clearly >> >> not >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> worst case, >> >> >> >> since it doesn't take calls to "get_next_rx_buffer" into account