Re: [PATCH V5 2/6 net-next] netdevice.h: Add zero-copy flag innetdevice

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:02:23AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 07:38 -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 13:40 +0200, MichaÅ MirosÅaw wrote:
> > > >> >> Not more other restrictions, skb clone is OK.
> > pskb_expand_head()
> > > looks
> > > >> >> OK to me from code review.
> > > >> > Hmm. pskb_expand_head calls skb_release_data while keeping
> > > >> > references to pages. How is that ok? What do I miss?
> > > >> It's making copy of the skb_shinfo earlier, so the pages refcount
> > > >> stays the same.
> > > > Exactly. But the callback is invoked so the guest thinks it's ok
> > to
> > > > change this memory. If it does a corrupted packet will be sent
> > out.
> > > 
> > > Hmm. I tool a quick look at skb_clone(), and it looks like this
> > > sequence will break this scheme:
> > > 
> > > skb2 = skb_clone(skb...);
> > > kfree_skb(skb) or pskb_expand_head(skb);  /* callback called */
> > > [use skb2, pages still referenced]
> > > kfree_skb(skb); /* callback called again */
> > > 
> > > This sequence is common in bridge, might be in other places.
> > > 
> > > Maybe this ubuf thing should just track clones? This will make it
> > work
> > > on all devices then.
> > 
> > The callback was only invoked when last reference of skb was gone.
> > skb_clone does increase skb refcnt. I tested tcpdump on lower device,
> > it
> > worked.
> > 
> > For the sequence of:
> > 
> > skb_clone  -> last refcnt + 1
> > kfree_skb() or pskb_expand_head -> callback not called
> > kfree_skb() -> callback called
> > 
> > I will check page refcount to see whether it's balanced. 
> 
> The page refcounts are balanced too. 
> 
> In macvtap/vhost Real NIC zerocopy case, it always goes to fastpath in
> pskb_expand_head, so I didn't hit any issue.
> 
> But rethinking about pskb_expand_head(), it calls skb_release_data() to
> free old skb head when it's not in the fastpath (pskb_expand_head is not
> the last reference of this skb); And it's impossible to track which skb
> head (old one or new one) will be the last one to free. So better to
> return error for zero-copy skbs when not using fastpath. Does it make
> sense? 

I'm not sure it does. Look e.g. at tg3 - if expand_head fails
packet gets dropped. No crash but unlikely to perform well :).

> Besides this, any other issue?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Shirley
--
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/