[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 07/03/14 09:23, Paul Durrant wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zoltan Kiss
Sent: 06 March 2014 21:40
To: Tim (Xen.org)
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wei Liu; Ian Campbell
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS oddness

On 06/03/14 17:30, Tim Deegan wrote:
At 16:31 +0000 on 06 Mar (1394119880), Zoltan Kiss wrote:
On 06/03/14 15:53, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:47 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
By my understanding, there is no way rsp could be smaller than req, so
there is no point having this. Am I missing something?

It happens during wraparound, i.e. after req has wrapped but rsp hasn't

The name of the macro suggest we are interested whether the ring has
unconsumed requests, and netback uses it that way. The answer to that
question is req_prod - req_cons. And it works if prod wrapped but cons


rsp calculates the number of "consumed but not responded" requests (it
also works well if req_cons wrapped but rsp_prod_pvt didn't), then
subtract it from the ring size.

That is indeed an odd thing to check, since it seems like it could only
be relevant if the request producer overran the response producer.
It's been there in one form or another since the original ring.h,
and RING_REQUEST_CONS_OVERFLOW does something similar.

I can't remember the original reasoning, and so I'm reluctant to
suggest removing it without some more eyes on the code...

I've added the following printk before the "req < rsp" part:

        if (rsp < req)                                                       \
                pr_err("req %u rsp %u req_prod %u req_cons %u
rsp_prod_pvt %u\n", req,
rsp, (_r)->sring->req_prod, (_r)->req_cons, (_r)->rsp_prod_pvt); \

And it gave me such results:

xen_netback:xenvif_zerocopy_callback: req 4294967279 rsp 52 req_prod
1770663942 req_cons 1770663959 rsp_prod_pvt 1770663755

So it can happen that req_prod is behind req_cons, sometimes even with
17! But it always happen in this callback of my new grant mapping
series, which runs outside the NAPI instance. My theory why this can
- callback reads req_prod
- frontend writes it
- backend picks it up, and consumes those slots
- callback reads req_cons

So req can be near UINT_MAX if you call this macro outside the backend.
The only place where the actual return value of this macro matters is
xenvif_tx_build_gops, and it should be correct there. At other places we
are only looking for the fact whether the ring has unconsumed requests
or not. If prod is smaller than cons, we clearly read a wrong value. I
think what we can do:
1. try again until its correct
2. just return a non-zero value, it shouldn't cause too much trouble if
we say yes here
3. we can't see rsp_cons, so try to figure out if the ring is full of
consumed but not responded requests, and return zero then, otherwise a
positive value. That's what we do know.

Does this make sense? Should we rather go option 1? Should I post a
comment patch to document this, and spare a few hours for future
generations? :)

The number of responses on the ring is clearly immaterial if you're only 
looking for unconsumed requests. So I think it should something analogous to 

     ((_r)->sring->req_prod - (_r)->req_cons)

Any racing between these two values is the responsibility of the individual 
frontend/backend and not something that this macro needs to care about.

I think we should introduce a new macro with a name like RING_NR_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS, which does what you wrote above: ((_r)->sring->req_prod - (_r)->req_cons) It should be used where we actually care about the number of the unconsumed request, practically from xenvif_tx_build_gops. And we should note in a comment that this macro works only if you use it from the context of the writer of req_cons (NAPI instance in our case) We can actually use it from tx_work_todo as well, and comment on the function that it should be used only from the NAPI instance.

The other users, who are not interested in the actual number:
xenvif_zerocopy_callback (new stuff from my series)

Apart from xenvif_poll they can run into the problem when (req_prod < req_cons). To handle that situation I've listed three options in my previous email. I think the current one is a quite good best effort to optimize the situation, and we can go with that, if we document it properly in comments why is it necessary.
To clarify what does this do, let me show an example:
req_prod = 253
req_cons = 256
rsp_prod_pvt = 0

req will be UINT_MAX-2, as the values changed in the meantime, and rsp is 0. It's reasonable to return 0 here, as the backend hasn't replied anything yet, so we clearly shouldn't have any unconsumed request in the ring.



Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.