On 16/07/2018 09:37, Lam, Tiago wrote: > On 13/07/2018 18:54, Darrell Ball wrote: >> Thanks for the patch. >> >> A few queries inline. >> > > Hi Darrell, > > Thanks for your inputs. I've replied in-line as well. > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tiago Lam <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> When enabled with DPDK OvS relies on mbufs allocated by mempools to >> receive and output data on DPDK ports. Until now, each OvS dp_packet has >> had only one mbuf associated, which is allocated with the maximum >> possible size, taking the MTU into account. This approach, however, >> doesn't allow us to increase the allocated size in an mbuf, if needed, >> since an mbuf is allocated and initialised upon mempool creation. Thus, >> in the current implementatin this is dealt with by calling >> OVS_NOT_REACHED() and terminating OvS. >> >> To avoid this, and allow the (already) allocated space to be better >> used, dp_packet_resize__() now tries to use the available room, both the >> tailroom and the headroom, to make enough space for the new data. Since >> this happens for packets of source DPBUF_DPDK, the single-segment mbuf >> case mentioned above is also covered by this new aproach in resize__(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Tiago Lam <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> --- >> lib/dp-packet.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/dp-packet.c b/lib/dp-packet.c >> index d6e19eb..87af459 100644 >> --- a/lib/dp-packet.c >> +++ b/lib/dp-packet.c >> @@ -237,9 +237,51 @@ dp_packet_resize__(struct dp_packet *b, size_t >> new_headroom, size_t new_tailroom >> new_allocated = new_headroom + dp_packet_size(b) + new_tailroom; >> >> switch (b->source) { >> + /* When resizing mbufs, both a single mbuf and multi-segment >> mbufs (where >> + * data is not contigously held in memory), both the headroom >> and the >> + * tailroom available will be used to make more space for where >> data needs >> + * to be inserted. I.e if there's not enough headroom, data may >> be shifted >> + * right if there's enough tailroom. >> + * However, this is not bulletproof and in some cases the space >> available >> + * won't be enough - in those cases, an error should be >> returned and the >> + * packet dropped. */ >> case DPBUF_DPDK: >> - OVS_NOT_REACHED(); >> >> >> Previously, it was a coding error to call this function for a DPDK mbuf >> case, which is pretty >> clear. But with this patch, presumably that is not longer the case and >> the calling the API is >> now ok for DPDK mbufs. >> > > As it stands, it will still be an error to call dp_packet_resize__() for > any DPDK packet, or by extension any of the other functions that call > it, such as dp_packet_prealloc_tailroom() and > dp_packet_prealloc_headroom(). This patch only tries to alleviate that > by accommodating space from the headroom or tailroom, if possible, and > create just enough space for the new data. My preferred approach would > be to return an error if not possible, but since the API doesn't deal > with errors as is, the previous behavior of manually asserting was left > as is. As reported in [1] (I comment more on that below), the behavior > of manually asserting can lead to undesired behavior in some use cases. > >> >> >> + { >> + size_t miss_len; >> + >> + if (new_headroom == dp_packet_headroom(b)) { >> + /* This is a tailroom adjustment. Since there's no >> tailroom space >> + * left, try and shift data towards the head to free up >> tail space, >> + * if there's enough headroom */ >> + >> + miss_len = new_tailroom - dp_packet_tailroom(b); >> + >> + if (miss_len <= new_headroom) { >> + dp_packet_shift(b, -miss_len); >> + } else { >> + /* XXX: Handle error case and report error to caller */ >> + OVS_NOT_REACHED(); >> >> >> >> This will not just drop the packet, it will fail the daemon, because a >> packet cannot be resized. >> If the system is completely depleted of memory, that may be ok, but in >> the case, no such >> assumption is implied. >> >> Also, why is XXX still left in the patch? >> > > Because there's still work to do in that regard. The whole process > shouldn't be brought down if there's not enough space to put some data > in one single packet. However, this was intentionally left out of this > series or otherwise it would increase its complexity considerably. > > As others have pointed out in [1], this is not a simple change, which > would have to be propagated to higher levels in other parts of the code > base. I've proposed an alternative (vs refactoring the whole dp_packet > API to handle and return errors) in [2], but that seems to have gone > stale. Going forward I see that approach merging with this new piece in > dp_packet_resize__(), where an error can be returned to the caller if > there's not enough space. > >> Also, the preexisting API handles two cases: >> 1/ Tailroom only adjustment >> 2/ headroom and/or tailroom adjustment >> >> meaning it handles all cases. >> >> The new DPDK addition (part of the same API) defines 2 cases >> >> 1/ tailroom only adjustment >> 2/ headroom only adjustment >> >> So, it looks like a different API, that also does not handle all cases. >> >> > > You have a point there, support for point 2/ "headroom and tailroom > adjustment" is missed. It doesn't seem to be used anywhere at the > moment, the only callers being dp_packet_prealloc_tailroom() and > dp_packet_prealloc_headroom(), but I'll submit an incremental patch to > deal with this. Thanks for pointing it out. > I've had a look into this and it doesn't seem that case number 2/ "headroom and tailroom adjustment" above would make sense for the DPBUF_DPDK case. The reason being that if both `new_tailroom` and `new_headroom` are being increased (in respect to dp_packet_tailroom() and dp_packet_headroom()), there won't be enough space as the tail and head would be competing for the same available space. So it makes sense to make it an exclusive operation for the DPBUF_DPDK case.
The work I mentioned before in [1] should help here as we would then be able to return an error (suach as `EINVAL`) if both "new_tailroom" and "new_headroom" are incremented for the DPBUF_DPDK case. What do you think? [1] https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2018-July/348908.html _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
