On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:13:49PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:33:43 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > @@ -572,12 +571,14 @@ again:
> > > > > 
> > > > >       /* This can happen with OOM and indirect buffers. */
> > > > >       if (unlikely(capacity < 0)) {
> > > > > -             netif_stop_queue(dev);
> > > > > -             dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Unexpected full queue\n");
> > > > > -             if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb(vi->svq))) {
> > > > > -                     virtqueue_disable_cb(vi->svq);
> > > > > -                     netif_start_queue(dev);
> > > > > -                     goto again;
> > > > > +             if (net_ratelimit()) {
> > > > > +                     if (likely(capacity == -ENOMEM))
> > > > > +                             dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> > > > > +                                      "TX queue failure: out of 
> > > > > memory\n");
> > > > > +                     else
> > > > > +                             dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> > > > > +                                      "Unexpected TX queue failure: 
> > > > > %d\n",
> > > > > +                                      capacity);
> ...
> > 
> > Well, I only keep the existing behaviour around.
> 
> Actually, it *does* change behavior, as the comment indicates.  So let's
> fix the whole thing.  AFAICT wth TX_BUSY we'll get called again RSN, and
> that's not really useful for OOM.
> 
> This is what I have:
> 
> Subject: virtio_net: fix oom handling on tx
> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:20:41 +0300
> From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com>
> 
> virtio net will never try to overflow the TX ring, so the only reason
> add_buf may fail is out of memory. Thus, we can not stop the
> device until some request completes - there's no guarantee anything
> at all is outstanding.
> 
> Make the error message clearer as well: error here does not
> indicate queue full.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> (...and avoid TX_BUSY)
> Cc: sta...@kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/net/virtio_net.c |   18 ++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -562,7 +562,6 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_
>       struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
>       int capacity;
>  
> -again:
>       /* Free up any pending old buffers before queueing new ones. */
>       free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
>  
> @@ -571,14 +570,17 @@ again:
>  
>       /* This can happen with OOM and indirect buffers. */
>       if (unlikely(capacity < 0)) {
> -             netif_stop_queue(dev);
> -             dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Unexpected full queue\n");
> -             if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb(vi->svq))) {
> -                     virtqueue_disable_cb(vi->svq);
> -                     netif_start_queue(dev);
> -                     goto again;
> +             if (net_ratelimit()) {
> +                     if (likely(capacity == -ENOMEM))
> +                             dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> +                                      "TX queue failure: out of memory\n");
> +                     else
> +                             dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> +                                      "Unexpected TX queue failure: %d\n",
> +                                      capacity);
>               }
> -             return NETDEV_TX_BUSY;
> +             kfree_skb(skb);
> +             return NETDEV_TX_OK;

If we do so, let's increment the dropped counter and/or error counter?

>       }
>       virtqueue_kick(vi->svq);
>  
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Reply via email to