On Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 12:16:24PM +0900, Takero Funaki wrote:
> 2024年9月6日(金) 18:55 Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 05:46:02PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 05:44:27 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 05:25:36PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 05:08:56 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 04:53:38PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 04:43:29 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 03:19:13PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > leads to regression on VM with the sysctl value of:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - net.core.high_order_alloc_disable=1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > which could see reliable crashes or scp failure (scp a file 100M in size
> > > > > > > > > to VM):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The issue is that the virtnet_rq_dma takes up 16 bytes at the beginning
> > > > > > > > > of a new frag. When the frag size is larger than PAGE_SIZE,
> > > > > > > > > everything is fine. However, if the frag is only one page and the
> > > > > > > > > total size of the buffer and virtnet_rq_dma is larger than one page, an
> > > > > > > > > overflow may occur. In this case, if an overflow is possible, I adjust
> > > > > > > > > the buffer size. If net.core.high_order_alloc_disable=1, the maximum
> > > > > > > > > buffer size is 4096 - 16. If net.core.high_order_alloc_disable=0, only
> > > > > > > > > the first buffer of the frag is affected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fixes: f9dac92ba908 ("virtio_ring: enable premapped mode whatever use_dma_api")
> > > > > > > > > Reported-by: "Si-Wei Liu" <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > Closes: http://lore.kernel.org/all/8b20cc28-45a9-4643-8e87-ba164a540c0a@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guys where are we going with this? We have a crasher right now,
> > > > > > > > if this is not fixed ASAP I'd have to revert a ton of
> > > > > > > > work Xuan Zhuo just did.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this patch can fix it and I tested it.
> > > > > > > But Darren said this patch did not work.
> > > > > > > I need more info about the crash that Darren encountered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what are we doing? Revert the whole pile for now?
> > > > > > Seems to be a bit of a pity, but maybe that's the best we can do
> > > > > > for this release.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Jason Could you review this?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this problem is clear, though I do not know why it did not work
> > > > > for Darren.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No regressions is a hard rule. If we can't figure out the regression
> > > > now, we should revert and you can try again for the next release.
> > >
> > > I see. I think I fixed it.
> > >
> > > Hope Darren can reply before you post the revert patches.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > It's very rushed anyway. I posted the reverts, but as RFC for now.
> > You should post a debugging patch for Darren to help you figure
> > out what is going on.
> >
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> My issue [1], which bisected to the commit f9dac92ba908, was resolved
> after applying the patch on v6.11-rc6.
> [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219154
>
> In my case, random crashes occur when receiving large data under heavy
> memory/IO load. Although the crash details differ, the memory
> corruption during data transfers is consistent.
>
> If Darren is unable to confirm the fix, would it be possible to
> consider merging this patch to close [1] instead?
>
> Thanks.
Could you also test
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1725616135.git.mst@xxxxxxxxxx/
please?
