Hi,
Apologies, I've been OOTO for the best part of 2 weeks, I'll try get to
this as soon as I can, but playing catch-up right now.
Thanks,
Darren.
On Saturday, 2024-09-07 at 12:16:24 +09, 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.
