[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable Linux 3.14-rc3 and 3.13 Network troubles "bisected"
Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 5:04:12 PM, you wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 04:21:27PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > [...] >> >> Added even more warns ... >> >> [ 297.885969] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue ! >> min_slots_needed:4 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:21764 vif->rx.req_cons:21762 >> [ 298.760555] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue ! >> min_slots_needed:3 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:22488 vif->rx.req_cons:22486 >> >> [ 306.376176] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? get_next_rx_buffer before req >> npo->meta_prod:30 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28313 >> [ 306.376556] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue ! >> min_slots_needed:1 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28313 >> [ 306.391863] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? get_next_rx_buffer after req >> npo->meta_prod:30 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28314 >> req->gref:4325377 req->id:153 >> >> [ 306.407599] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here 2 >> npo->meta_prod:31 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28314 >> npo->copy_gref:4325377 npo->copy_off:0 MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:640 >> size:640 i:4 >> [ 306.423913] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here end >> npo->meta_prod:31 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28314 >> npo->copy_gref:4325377 npo->copy_off:640 MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:640 >> size:0 i:5 >> >> >> [ 306.440941] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 4 >> npo->meta_prod:31 old_meta_prod:25 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 >> vif->rx.req_cons:28314 gso_type:1 gso_size:1448 nr_frags:1 req->gref:638 >> req->id:147 >> [ 306.458334] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 2 before req >> npo->meta_prod:31 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28315 >> gso_type:0 gso_size:0 nr_frags:0 >> [ 306.476097] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 2 after req >> npo->meta_prod:31 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28315 >> gso_type:0 gso_size:0 nr_frags:0 req->gref:4325377 req->id:154 >> [ 306.494462] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 3 before >> npo->meta_prod:32 old_meta_prod:31 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 >> vif->rx.req_cons:28315 gso_type:0 gso_size:0 nr_frags:0 req->gref:4325377 >> req->id:154 j:0 >> [ 306.513424] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here start >> npo->meta_prod:32 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:28313 vif->rx.req_cons:28315 >> npo->copy_gref:4325377 npo->copy_off:0 MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:0 >> size:66 i:0 >> [ 311.390883] net_ratelimit: 317 callbacks suppressed >> [ 311.400901] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue ! >> min_slots_needed:3 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:32386 vif->rx.req_cons:32322 >> >> - So in this case we are in the 3rd iteration of the loop in >> xenvif_gop_frag_copy ... >> - Xenvif_start_xmit stop the queue since it has detected it needs one more >> slot which is unavailable at that time. > Yes. >> - The current rx thread however doesn't know and doesn't check (neither in >> the loop in xenvif_gop_frag_copy nor in get_next_rx_buffer that the ring if >> full) .. while prod == cons now .. consumes another one .. > It does check -- but not in xenvif_gop_frag_copy -- see > xenvif_rx_action, which calls xenvif_rx_ring_slots_available before > queueing skb to break down. That is, when you call xenvif_gop_skb there > should be enough room to accommodate that SKB. >> - That ring request leads to the bad grant references reported by the >> hypervisor >> >> (XEN) [2014-03-18 15:02:58.928] grant_table.c:1857:d0v2 Bad grant reference >> 4325377 >> >> So should there be a check added there ... or should the callers >> "xenvif_gop_frag_copy" and the caller of that one "xenvif_gop_skb" already >> have anticipated that what the were about >> to do wasn't going to fit anyway ? >> > No, see above. >> And of course .. how made Paul's change trigger this ? >> > Before Paul's change, we always reserve very large room for an incoming > SKB. After Paul's change, we only reserve just enough room. Probably > some extra room prevents this bug being triggered. [ 599.970745] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? get_next_rx_buffer before req npo->meta_prod:37 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506387 vif->rx.sring->req_event:504174 [ 599.972487] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue ! min_slots_needed:1 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506387 vif->rx.sring->req_event:506388 [ 600.044322] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? get_next_rx_buffer after req npo->meta_prod:37 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 req->gref:165543936 req->id:19 vif->rx.sring->req_event:506388 [ 600.081167] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here 2 npo->meta_prod:38 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 npo->copy_gref:165543936 npo->copy_off:0 MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:1168 size:1168 i:6 vif->rx.sring->req_event:506388 estimated_slots_needed:8 [ 600.118268] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_frag_copy Me here end npo->meta_prod:38 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 npo->copy_gref:165543936 npo->copy_off:1168 MAX_BUFFER_OFFSET:4096 bytes:1168 size:0 i:7 vif->rx.sring->req_event:506388 estimated_slots_needed:8 [ 600.155378] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 4 npo->meta_prod:38 old_meta_prod:30 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 gso_type:1 gso_size:1448 nr_frags:1 req->gref:570 req->id:11 estimated_slots_needed:8 i(frag): 0 [ 600.192438] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_gop_skb Me here 5 npo->meta_prod:38 old_meta_prod:30 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 gso_type:1 gso_size:1448 nr_frags:1 req->gref:570 req->id:11 estimated_slots_needed:8 [ 600.229395] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action me here 2 .. vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 sco->meta_slots_used:8 max_upped_gso:1 skb_is_gso(skb):1 max_slots_needed:8 j:3 is_gso:1 nr_frags:1 firstpart:1 secondpart:6 min_slots_needed:3 [ 600.266518] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_rx_action me here 1 .. vif->rx.sring->req_prod:506387 vif->rx.req_cons:506388 max_upped_gso:1 skb_is_gso(skb):0 max_slots_needed:1 j:4 is_gso:0 nr_frags:0 firstpart:1 secondpart:0 min_slots_needed:1 It seems to estimate 8 slots and need 8 slots ... however .. shouldn't the queue have been stopped before getting here .. > Wei. >> >> >> The second time it does get to the code after the RING_GET_REQUEST in >> >> 'get_next_rx_buffer' and that leads to mayhem ... >> >> >> >> So added a netdev_warn to xenvif_start_xmit for the "stop queue" case .. >> >> unfortunately it now triggers net_ratelimit at the end: >> >> >> >> [ 402.909693] vif vif-7-0 vif7.0: ?!? xenvif_start_xmit stopping queue ! >> >> min_slots_needed:7 vif->rx.sring->req_prod:189228 vif->rx.req_cons:189222 >> >> > I think xenvif_rx_ring_slots_available is doing its job. If req_prod - >> > req_cons < needed, the queue is stopeed. So it seems .. most of the time .. but if i look at the calculation of "min_slots_needed" in this function it seems completely different from the one in xenvif_rx_action for max_slots_needed .. though both seem to be used for the same thing .. to calcultate how many slots the brokendown SKB would need to fit in .. So i added the calculation method from xenvif_start_xmit to xenvif_rx_action .. in the error case you see min_slots_needed was 3 .. but max_slots_needed and max_slots_used both were 8. The main difference between these calculation methods seems to be that min_slots_needed doesn't take the PAGE_SIZE into account to see how many slots are needed for the frags. So Paul .. why was the "xenvif_count_skb_slots(vif, skb)" function dropped and replaced by two seperate and different calculations ? -- Sander >> >> > Wei. >> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |