On 20 Aug 2019, at 17:20, Ilya Maximets wrote:
On 20.08.2019 14:19, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
On 20 Aug 2019, at 12:10, Ilya Maximets wrote:
On 14.08.2019 19:16, William Tu wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:58 AM William Tu <u9012...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Eelco Chaudron
<echau...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:38, Ilya Maximets wrote:
<SNIP>
I see a rather high number of afxdp_cq_skip, which should to
my
knowledge never happen?
I tried to investigate this previously, but didn't find
anything
suspicious.
So, for my knowledge, this should never happen too.
However, I only looked at the code without actually running,
because
I had no
HW available for testing.
While investigation and stress-testing virtual ports I found
few
issues with
missing locking inside the kernel, so there is no trust for
kernel
part of XDP
implementation from my side. I'm suspecting that there are
some
other bugs in
kernel/libbpf that only could be reproduced with driver mode.
This never happens for virtual ports with SKB mode, so I never
saw
this coverage
counter being non-zero.
Did some quick debugging, as something else has come up that
needs my
attention :)
But once I’m in a faulty state and sent a single packet,
causing
afxdp_complete_tx() to be called, it tells me 2048 descriptors
are
ready, which is XSK_RING_PROD__DEFAULT_NUM_DESCS. So I guess
that
there might be some ring management bug. Maybe consumer and
receiver
are equal meaning 0 buffers, but it returns max? I did not look
at
the kernel code, so this is just a wild guess :)
(gdb) p tx_done
$3 = 2048
(gdb) p umem->cq
$4 = {cached_prod = 3830466864, cached_cons = 3578066899, mask
=
2047, size = 2048, producer = 0x7f08486b8000, consumer =
0x7f08486b8040, ring = 0x7f08486b8080}
Thanks for debugging!
xsk_ring_cons__peek() just returns the difference between
cached_prod
and cached_cons, but these values are too different:
3830466864 - 3578066899 = 252399965
Since this value > requested, it returns requested number
(2048).
So, the ring is broken. At least broken its 'cached' part. It'll
be
good
to look at *consumer and *producer values to verify the state of
the
actual ring.
I’ll try to find some more time next week to debug further.
William I noticed your email in xdp-newbies where you mention
this
problem of getting the wrong pointers. Did you ever follow up, or
did
further trouble shooting on the above?
Yes, I posted here
https://www.spinics.net/lists/xdp-newbies/msg00956.html
"Question/Bug about AF_XDP idx_cq from xsk_ring_cons__peek?"
At that time I was thinking about reproducing the problem using
the
xdpsock sample code from kernel. But turned out that my
reproduction
code is not correct, so not able to show the case we hit here in
OVS.
Then I put more similar code logic from OVS to xdpsock, but the
problem
does not show up. As a result, I worked around it by marking addr
as
"*addr == UINT64_MAX".
I will debug again this week once I get my testbed back.
Just to refresh my memory. The original issue is that
when calling:
tx_done = xsk_ring_cons__peek(&umem->cq, CONS_NUM_DESCS, &idx_cq);
xsk_ring_cons__release(&umem->cq, tx_done);
I expect there are 'tx_done' elems on the CQ to re-cycle back to
memory pool.
However, when I inspect these elems, I found some elems that
'already' been
reported complete last time I call xsk_ring_cons__peek. In other
word, some
elems show up at CQ twice. And this cause overflow of the mempool.
Thus, mark the elems on CQ as UINT64_MAX to indicate that we
already
seen this elem.
William, Eelco, which HW NIC you're using? Which kernel driver?
I’m using the below on the latest bpf-next driver:
01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit
SFI/SFP+ Network Connection (rev 01)
01:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit
SFI/SFP+ Network Connection (rev 01)
Thanks for information.
I found one suspicious place inside the ixgbe driver that could break
the completion queue ring and prepared a patch:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1150244/
It'll be good if you can test it.
Hi Ilya, I was doping some testing of my own, and also concluded it was
in the drivers' completion ring. I noticed after sending 512 packets the
drivers TX counters kept increasing, which looks related to your fix.
Will try it out, and sent results to the upstream mailing list…
Thanks,
Eelco
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
