Re: PATCH v2 3/4] Defer skb allocation -- new recvbuf alloc &receive calls

[Shirley Ma]

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Interesting. I think skb_goodcopy will sometimes
> set *page to NULL. Will the above crash then?

Nope, when *page is NULL, *len is 0.

> don't put empty line here. if below is part of same logical block as
> skb_goodcopy.
Ok.

> Local variable shadows a parameter.
> It seems gcc will let you get away with a warning,
> but this is not legal C.
Ok.

> > +
> > +             i = skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags;
> > +             if (i >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> > +                     pr_debug("%s: packet too long %d\n",
> skb->dev->name,
> > +                              len);
> 
> If this happens, we have corrupted memory already.
> We do need this check, but please put is before you increment
> nr_frags.

It is before increase for mergeable buffer case. Only one page(one frag)
per get_buf.

> > +                     skb->dev->stats.rx_length_errors++;
> > +                     return skb;
> 
> This will propagate the error up the stack and corrupt
> more memory.

I just copied the code from original code. There might not be a problem
for mergeable buffer. I will double check.

> sizeof hdr->hdr
Ok.

> > +
> > +     skb_to_sgvec(skb, sg+1, 0, skb->len);
> 
> space around +
Ok.

> > +
> > +     err = vi->rvq->vq_ops->add_buf(vi->rvq, sg, 0, 2, skb);
> > +     if (err < 0)
> > +             kfree_skb(skb);
> > +     else
> > +             skb_queue_head(&vi->recv, skb);
> 
> So why are we queueing this still?
This is for small packet. I didn't change that code since it will
involve extra copy by using page.

> > +
> > +     return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int add_recvbuf_big(struct virtnet_info *vi, gfp_t gfp, bool
> *oom)
> > +{
> > +     struct scatterlist sg[2 + MAX_SKB_FRAGS];
> 
> MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 2 will be more readable.
> Also, create a macro for this constant and document
> why does +2 make sense?

One is for big packet virtio_net_hdr, one is for goodcopy skb.

> Again, pls explain *why* do we want 16 byte alignment.
> Also this code seems duplicated?
> Please put structs at top of file where they
> can be found.
Ok.

> > +     };
> > +
> > +     offset = sizeof(struct padded_vnet_hdr);
> > +
> > +     for (i = total - 1; i > 0; i--) {
> 
> I prefer --i.
Ok.

> Also, total is just a constant.
> So simply MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1 will be clearer.
Ok.

> Why do we scan last to first?
> If there's reason, please add a comment.
We use page private to maintain next page, here there is no scan last to
first, just add the new page in list head instead of list tail, which
will require scan the list.

> space around - .
Ok.

> All the if (i == 1) handling on exit is really hard to grok.
> How about moving common code out of this loop
> into a function, and then you can
>         for (i = total - 1; i > 1; i--) {
>                 handle(i);
>         }
>         handle(1);
>         handle(0);
>         add_buf
That works.

> do we really need *oom here and below?
> We can just set err to ENOMEM, no?
We could.

> Please do not return 0 on failure.

Ok.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/