Re: [PATCHv2 10/14] virtio_net: limit xmit polling
From: Rusty Russell <hidden>
Date: 2011-05-25 01:28:26
On Mon, 23 May 2011 14:19:00 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:37:15AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:quoted
Can we hit problems with OOM? Sure, but no worse than now... The problem is that this "virtqueue_get_capacity()" returns the worst case, not the normal case. So using it is deceptive.Maybe just document this?
Yes, but also by renaming virtqueue_get_capacity(). Takes it from a 3 to a 6 on the API hard-to-misuse scale. How about, virtqueue_min_capacity()? Makes the reader realize something weird is going on.
I still believe capacity really needs to be decided at the virtqueue level, not in the driver. E.g. with indirect each skb uses a single entry: freeing 1 small skb is always enough to have space for a large one. I do understand how it seems a waste to leave direct space in the ring while we might in practice have space due to indirect. Didn't come up with a nice way to solve this yet - but 'no worse than now :)'
Agreed.
quoted
quoted
I just wanted to localize the 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS logic that tries to make sure we have enough space in the buffer. Another way to do that is with a define :).To do this properly, we should really be using the actual number of sg elements needed, but we'd have to do most of xmit_skb beforehand so we know how many. Cheers, Rusty.Maybe I'm confused here. The problem isn't the failing add_buf for the given skb IIUC. What we are trying to do here is stop the queue *before xmit_skb fails*. We can't look at the number of fragments in the current skb - the next one can be much larger. That's why we check capacity after xmit_skb, not before it, right?
No, I was confused... More coffee! Thanks, Rusty.