On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:37:32 -0500, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 09:58:45AM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 07:06:16 -0500, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 04:18:32PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > For rq, we have three cases getting buffers from virtio core:
> > > >
> > > > 1. virtqueue_get_buf{,_ctx}
> > > > 2. virtqueue_detach_unused_buf
> > > > 3. callback for virtqueue_resize
> > > >
> > > > But in commit 295525e29a5b("virtio_net: merge dma operations when
> > > > filling mergeable buffers"), I missed the dma unmap for the #3 case.
> > > >
> > > > That will leak some memory, because I did not release the pages referred
> > > > by the unused buffers.
> > > >
> > > > If we do such script, we will make the system OOM.
> > > >
> > > > while true
> > > > do
> > > > ethtool -G ens4 rx 128
> > > > ethtool -G ens4 rx 256
> > > > free -m
> > > > done
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 295525e29a5b ("virtio_net: merge dma operations when filling
> > > > mergeable buffers")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanz...@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > index d16f592c2061..6423a3a007ce 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > @@ -408,6 +408,17 @@ static struct page *get_a_page(struct
> > > > receive_queue *rq, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > > return p;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void virtnet_rq_free_buf(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> > > > + struct receive_queue *rq, void *buf)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs)
> > > > + put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> > > > + else if (vi->big_packets)
> > > > + give_pages(rq, buf);
> > > > + else
> > > > + put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > > static void enable_delayed_refill(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > > {
> > > > spin_lock_bh(&vi->refill_lock);
> > > > @@ -634,17 +645,6 @@ static void *virtnet_rq_get_buf(struct
> > > > receive_queue *rq, u32 *len, void **ctx)
> > > > return buf;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static void *virtnet_rq_detach_unused_buf(struct receive_queue *rq)
> > > > -{
> > > > - void *buf;
> > > > -
> > > > - buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(rq->vq);
> > > > - if (buf && rq->do_dma)
> > > > - virtnet_rq_unmap(rq, buf, 0);
> > > > -
> > > > - return buf;
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static void virtnet_rq_init_one_sg(struct receive_queue *rq, void
> > > > *buf, u32 len)
> > > > {
> > > > struct virtnet_rq_dma *dma;
> > > > @@ -1764,7 +1764,7 @@ static void receive_buf(struct virtnet_info *vi,
> > > > struct receive_queue *rq,
> > > > if (unlikely(len < vi->hdr_len + ETH_HLEN)) {
> > > > pr_debug("%s: short packet %i\n", dev->name, len);
> > > > DEV_STATS_INC(dev, rx_length_errors);
> > > > - virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(rq->vq, buf);
> > > > + virtnet_rq_free_buf(vi, rq, buf);
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -4034,14 +4034,15 @@ static void virtnet_sq_free_unused_buf(struct
> > > > virtqueue *vq, void *buf)
> > > > static void virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(struct virtqueue *vq, void *buf)
> > > > {
> > > > struct virtnet_info *vi = vq->vdev->priv;
> > > > + struct receive_queue *rq;
> > > > int i = vq2rxq(vq);
> > > >
> > > > - if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs)
> > > > - put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> > > > - else if (vi->big_packets)
> > > > - give_pages(&vi->rq[i], buf);
> > > > - else
> > > > - put_page(virt_to_head_page(buf));
> > > > + rq = &vi->rq[i];
> > > > +
> > > > + if (rq->do_dma)
> > > > + virtnet_rq_unmap(rq, buf, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + virtnet_rq_free_buf(vi, rq, buf);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > So we have virtnet_rq_free_buf which sounds like it should free any
> > > buf, and we have virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf which is only for unused.
> > > Or so it would seem from names but this is not true.
> > > Better function names?
> >
> > Sorry. not get it.
> >
> > virtnet_rq_free_buf() that free the buf passed in. That is called by
> > virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf or receive_buf to free the buffer. I think
> > the name is right.
> >
> > virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf is called by free_unused_bufs() and the
> > virtqueue_resize() to free the unused bufs. I think this name is right also.
> >
> > So I do not get your mean.
> > Are there any details I've overlooked?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Bad function names - they are too similar. Function name should
> say what it does not where it's called from.
> What is the difference? That virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf unmaps
> and frees and virtnet_rq_free_buf just frees memory?
Yes. virtnet_rq_free_buf frees memory.
For this patch, I think virtnet_rq_free_buf is ok.
virtnet_rq_free_buf is as your request.
virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf is named as it want to do. Or as you said.
Indeed these are similar.
Could you give some advices?
Thanks.
>
>
> > >
> > > > static void free_unused_bufs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > > @@ -4057,10 +4058,10 @@ static void free_unused_bufs(struct
> > > > virtnet_info *vi)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> > > > - struct receive_queue *rq = &vi->rq[i];
> > > > + struct virtqueue *vq = vi->rq[i].vq;
> > > >
> > > > - while ((buf = virtnet_rq_detach_unused_buf(rq)) != NULL)
> > > > - virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(rq->vq, buf);
> > > > + while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(vq)) != NULL)
> > > > + virtnet_rq_free_unused_buf(vq, buf);
> > > > cond_resched();
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.32.0.3.g01195cf9f
> > >
>
