On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 10:09:18AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> 02/02/2011 03:11 AM
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:28:45PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:21 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Confused. We compare capacity to skb frags, no?
> > > > That's sg I think ...
> > >
> > > Current guest kernel use indirect buffers, num_free returns how many
> > > available descriptors not skb frags. So it's wrong here.
> > >
> > > Shirley
> >
> > I see. Good point. In other words when we complete the buffer
> > it was indirect, but when we add a new one we
> > can not allocate indirect so we consume.
> > And then we start the queue and add will fail.
> > I guess we need some kind of API to figure out
> > whether the buf we complete was indirect?
> >
> > Another failure mode is when skb_xmit_done
> > wakes the queue: it might be too early, there
> > might not be space for the next packet in the vq yet.
>
> I am not sure if this is the problem - shouldn't you
> see these messages:
> if (likely(capacity == -ENOMEM)) {
> dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> "TX queue failure: out of memory\n");
> } else {
> dev->stats.tx_fifo_errors++;
> dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> "Unexpected TX queue failure: %d\n",
> capacity);
> }
> in next xmit? I am not getting this in my testing.
Yes, I don't think we hit this in our testing,
simply because we don't stress memory.
Disable indirect, then you might see this.
> > A solution might be to keep some kind of pool
> > around for indirect, we wanted to do it for block anyway ...
>
> Your vhost patch should fix this automatically. Right?
Reduce the chance of it happening, yes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - KK
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
