On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:28:09AM -0800, Michael Dalton wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Jason Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What's the reason that this extra space is not accounted for truesize?
> The initial rationale was that this extra space is due to
> internal fragmentation in the page frag allocator, but I agree with
> you -- this code should be changed and the extra space accounted for.
> Any internal fragmentation leading to a larger last packet allocated from
> the page should be reflected in the SKB truesize of the last packet.
I think this is what the original patchset did, but I don't really get
why this is a good idea.
Why should we select a frame at random and make it's truesize bigger?
All frames are to blame for the extra space.
Just ignoring it seems more symmetrical.
> I will do a followup patchset that accounts correctly for the extra
> space, which will also me to remove the two max statements you
> indicated. Thanks for finding this issue.
>
> >> + if (err < 0) {
> >> + put_page(virt_to_head_page(ctx->buf));
> >> + return err;
> > Should we also roll back the frag offset added above to avoid leaking frags?
> I believe the put_page here is sufficient for correctness. When we
> allocate a buffer using skb_page_frag_refill, we use get_page/put_page
> to allocate/free respectively. For example, if the virtqueue_add_inbuf
> succeeded, we would eventually call put_page either in virtio-net
> (e.g., page_to_skb for packets <= GOOD_COPY_LEN bytes) or later in
> __skb_frag_unref and other functions called during dev_kfree_skb.
>
> However, an offset rollback does allow the space to be reused by the next
> allocation, which could be a good optimization. I can do the offset
> rollback (with a put_page) in the next patchset. What do you think?
If you intend to repost anyway (for the below wrinkle) then
you can do it right here just as well I guess. Seems a bit prettier.
> >> + /* Do not attempt to add a buffer if the RX ring is full. */
> >> + if (unlikely(!rq->vq->num_free))
> >> + return true;
> > I haven't figured out why this is needed. It seems safe for
> > virtqueue_add_inbuf() just fail in add_recv_xx()?
> I think this is safe with one caveat -- we can't modify
> rq->mrg_buf_ctx until we know the ring isn't full (otherwise, we
> clobber an in-use entry). It is safe to modify rq->mrg_buf_ctx
> after we know that virtqueue_add_inbuf has succeeded.
>
> I can remove the rq_num_free check from try_fill_recv, and then
> modify virtqueue_add_inbuf to use a local mergeable_receive_buf_ctx.
> Once virtqueue_add_inbuf succeeds, the contents of the local variable
> can be copied to rq->mrg_buf_ctx[rq->mrg_buf_ctx_head].
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
You don't have to fill in ctx before calling add_inbuf, do you?
Just fill it afterwards.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
