virtio-net: tx queue was stopped

Linhaifeng
Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:24:07 -0000

On 2015/3/15 16:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 02:50:27PM +0800, Linhaifeng wrote:
>> Hi,Michael
>>
>> I had tested the start_xmit function by the follow code found that the
tx queue's state is stopped and can't send any packets anymore.
>
> Why don't you Cc all maintainers on this email?
> Pls check the file MAINTAINERS for the full list.
> I added Cc for now.
>

Thank you.

>>
>> static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device
*dev)
>> {
>> 	... ...
>>
>>
>>         capacity = 10;	//########## test code : force to call
netif_stop_queue
>>
>>         if (capacity < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
>>                 netif_stop_queue(dev);
>
> So you changed code to make it think we are out of capacity, now it
> stops the queue.
>
>>
>>                 if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed(vi->svq)))
{
>>                         /* More just got used, free them then recheck.
*/
>>                         capacity += free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
>>                         dev_warn(&dev->dev,
"free_old_xmit_skbs capacity =%d MAX_SKB_FRAGS=%d", capacity,
MAX_SKB_FRAGS);
>>
>>                         capacity = 10;		//########## test code : force
not to call  netif_start_queue
>>
>>                         if (capacity >= 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
>>                                 netif_start_queue(dev);
>>                                 virtqueue_disable_cb(vi->svq);
>>                         } else {
>> 				//########## OTOH if often enter this branch tx queue maybe
stopped.
>> 			}
>
> and changed it here so it won't restart queue if host consumed
> all buffers.
> unsurprisingly this makes driver not work.
>
>
>>
>>                 }
>>
>> 		//########## Should we start queue here? I found that sometimes
skb_xmit_done run before netif_stop_queue if this occurred the queue's state
is
>> 		//########## stopped and have to reload virtio-net module to restore
network.
>
> With or without your changes?

without

> Is this the condition you describe?
>
>
>         if (sq->vq->num_free < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
>
> ---> at this point, skb_xmit_done runs. this does:
>         /* Suppress further interrupts. */
>         virtqueue_disable_cb(vq);
>
>         /* We were probably waiting for more output buffers. */
>         netif_wake_subqueue(vi->dev, vq2txq(vq));
> --->
>
>
>

Because i use vhost-user(poll mode) with virtio_net so at this time vhost
had received all packets.

>                 netif_stop_subqueue(dev, qnum);
>
> ---> queue is now stopped
>
>                 if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed(sq->vq))) {
>
> ----> this re-enables interrupts, after an interrupt skb_xmit_done
> 	will run again.
>

Before netif_stop_subqueue called vhost had received all packets so virtio_net
will never receive any skb_xmit_done.

If vhost is in poll mode should we need or not to stop tx queue?
Can i add a flag VHOST_F_POLL_MODE to support poll mode vhost(vhost-user)?

>                         /* More just got used, free them then recheck.
>  * */
>                         free_old_xmit_skbs(sq);
>                         if (sq->vq->num_free >= 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
>                                 netif_start_subqueue(dev, qnum);
>                                 virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
>                         }
>                 }
>         }
>
>
> I can't see a race condition from your description above.
>
>>         }
>>
>> }
>>
>> ping 9.62.1.2 -i 0.1
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.115 ms
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.101 ms
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.098 ms
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
>> 64 bytes from 9.62.1.2: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
>> ....
>> ping:  sendmsg:  No buffer space available
>> ping:  sendmsg:  No buffer space available
>> ping:  sendmsg:  No buffer space available
>> ping:  sendmsg:  No buffer space available
>> ping:  sendmsg:  No buffer space available
>> ping:  sendmsg:  No buffer space available
>> ....
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Haifeng
>
> I can't say what does your code-changing experiment show.
> It might be better to introduce delay by calling something like
> cpu_relax at specific points (maybe multiple times in a loop).
>



--
Regards,
Haifeng