Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network troubles "bisected"

[Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 3:59:15 PM, you wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 03:49:46PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> 
>> Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 3:48:26 PM, you wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 03:23:36PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > From the look of the code, 0 looks correct to me. Netback won't complain
>> >> > about "bad gref" because it has no idea what a "good gref" looks like.
>> >> > Only Xen has the knowledge whether a gref is legit. All netback sees is
>> >> > the hypercall fails and it tries to push corresponding response to
>> >> > netfront. But you can probably safely assume a gref larger than several
>> >> > thousands be bad.
>> >> 
>> >> OK it's indeed netback setting the status to -1:
>> >> 
>> >> [  976.431585] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? 
>> >> status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:958
>> >> [ 1030.855057] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? 
>> >> status:-1 meta_slots_used:2 flags:7 size:2974
>> >> [ 1030.861759] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:0 nr_meta_slots:1 flags:0 size:1460
>> >> [ 1030.868499] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? 
>> >> status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:958
>> >> [ 1030.875278] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? 
>> >> status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:2974
>> >> [ 1068.199650] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? 
>> >> status:-1 meta_slots_used:8 flags:7 size:1634
>> >> [ 1068.206479] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:0 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:2848
>> >> [ 1068.213158] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:1 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096
>> >> [ 1068.219701] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:2 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096
>> >> [ 1068.226194] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:3 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096
>> >> [ 1068.232728] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:4 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096
>> >> [ 1068.239163] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:5 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:4 size:4096
>> >> [ 1068.245397] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_add_frag_responses status 
>> >> err? status:-1 i:6 nr_meta_slots:7 flags:0 size:1168
>> >> [ 1068.251457] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action status err? 
>> >> status:-1 meta_slots_used:1 flags:3 size:958
>> >> 
>> >> Now to find out why ..
>> >> 
>> 
>> > -1 is the error code documented in netif.h, XEN_NETIF_RSP_ERROR.
>> 
>> grant copy fails ->> netback sets response status to -1.
>> 
>> > Assuming the traffic volumn is quite high both way (TX and RX), probably
>> > worth checking if RX ring is overflowed. That is, if consumer pointer(s)
>> > advance before producer pointer(s).
>> 
>> In what function ?
>> 

> That should be in RX path. Look for "RING_GET_REQUESTS(&vif->rx". That's
> the macro to get a slot in RX ring; second argument is consumer index.
> You can see if it advances before producer index.

Ah  RING_GET_REQUEST it is ... compiling again ..
> Wei.

>> > Wei.
>> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel