On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:14:21AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 18:06 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Hmm some kind of disconnect here.
> > I got you rmanagement about bufferbloat.
> >
> > What I am saying is that maybe we should drop packets more
> > aggressively: wh
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 18:06 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hmm some kind of disconnect here.
> I got you rmanagement about bufferbloat.
>
> What I am saying is that maybe we should drop packets more
> aggressively: when we drop one packet of a flow, why not
> drop everything that's queued and
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:16:33AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 10:58 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 23:53 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Which NIC? Virtio? Prior t
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 10:58 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 23:53 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > Which NIC? Virtio? Prior to 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a6510b73180660a
> > > it didn't drop packets
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:38:16PM -0800, Michael Dalton wrote:
> Great catch Jason. I agree this now raises the larger issue of how to
> handle a memory alloc failure in the middle of receive. As Eric mentioned,
> we can drop the packet and free the remaining (num_buf) frags.
>
> Michael, perhaps
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:34:16PM -0800, Michael Dalton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After further reflection I think we're looking at two related issues:
> (a) a memory leak that Jason has identified that occurs when a memory
> allocation fails in receive_mergeable. Jasons commit solves this issue.
> (b) vi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 23:53 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Which NIC? Virtio? Prior to 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a6510b73180660a
> > it didn't drop packets received from host as far as I can tell.
> > virtio is more like a pipe
On 11/20/2013 09:34 AM, Michael Dalton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After further reflection I think we're looking at two related issues:
> (a) a memory leak that Jason has identified that occurs when a memory
> allocation fails in receive_mergeable. Jasons commit solves this issue.
> (b) virtio-net does not d
On 11/20/2013 04:49 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:03:48AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for frag
>>> list, otherwise it will be leaked. The bug wa
On 11/19/2013 10:03 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for frag
>> > list, otherwise it will be leaked. The bug was introduced by commit
>> > 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a6510b73180660a
Hi,
After further reflection I think we're looking at two related issues:
(a) a memory leak that Jason has identified that occurs when a memory
allocation fails in receive_mergeable. Jasons commit solves this issue.
(b) virtio-net does not dequeue all buffers for a packet in the
case that an error
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 23:53 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Which NIC? Virtio? Prior to 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a6510b73180660a
> it didn't drop packets received from host as far as I can tell.
> virtio is more like a pipe than a real NIC in this respect.
Prior/after to this patch, you were n
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:36:36PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 22:49 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:03:48AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > We need to drop the refcnt of page when w
Great catch Jason. I agree this now raises the larger issue of how to
handle a memory alloc failure in the middle of receive. As Eric mentioned,
we can drop the packet and free the remaining (num_buf) frags.
Michael, perhaps I'm missing something, but why would you prefer
pre-allocating buffers in
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 22:49 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:03:48AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for
> > > frag
> > > list, otherwise it wil
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:03:48AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for frag
> > list, otherwise it will be leaked. The bug was introduced by commit
> > 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:03:48AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for frag
> > list, otherwise it will be leaked. The bug was introduced by commit
> > 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for frag
> list, otherwise it will be leaked. The bug was introduced by commit
> 2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a6510b73180660a ("virtio_net: migrate mergeable rx
> buffers to page fr
We need to drop the refcnt of page when we fail to allocate an skb for frag
list, otherwise it will be leaked. The bug was introduced by commit
2613af0ed18a11d5c566a81f9a6510b73180660a ("virtio_net: migrate mergeable rx
buffers to page frag allocators").
Cc: Michael Dalton
Cc: Eric Dumazet
Cc: R
19 matches
Mail list logo
