[virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio-net: use mtu size as buffer length for big packets

Michael S. Tsirkin
Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:03:05 -0000

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 02:59:55PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at
redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 02:14:07AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:24:23PM -0700, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/9/2022 3:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 6:26 PM
> > > > > > To: Parav Pandit <parav at nvidia.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at oracle.com>;
Jason Wang
> > > > > > <jasowang at redhat.com>; Gavin Li
<gavinl at nvidia.com>; Hemminger,
> > > > > > Stephen <stephen at networkplumber.org>;
davem
> > > > > > <davem at davemloft.net>; virtualization
<virtualization at lists.linux-
> > > > > > foundation.org>; Virtio-Dev <virtio-dev at
lists.oasis-open.org>;
> > > > > > jesse.brandeburg at intel.com; alexander.h.duyck
at intel.com;
> > > > > > kubakici at wp.pl; sridhar.samudrala at intel.com;
loseweigh at gmail.com; Gavi
> > > > > > Teitz <gavi at nvidia.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH] virtio-net: use
mtu size as buffer length for
> > > > > > big packets
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 09:49:03PM +0000, Parav
Pandit wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at
redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 5:38 PM
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > > > > I think virtio-net driver
doesn't differentiate MTU and MRU, in
> > > > > > > > > > which case the receive buffer
will be reduced to fit the 1500B
> > > > > > > > > > payload size when mtu is
lowered down to 1500 from 9000.
> > > > > > > > > How? Driver reduced the mXu to
1500, say it is improved to post
> > > > > > > > > buffers of
> > > > > > > > 1500 bytes.
> > > > > > > > > Device doesn't know about it
because mtu in config space is RO field.
> > > > > > > > > Device keep dropping 9K packets
because buffers posted are 1500
> > > > > > bytes.
> > > > > > > > > This is because device follows the
spec " The device MUST NOT pass
> > > > > > > > received packets that exceed mtu".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The "mtu" here is the device
config field, which is
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >          /* Default maximum transmit
unit advice */
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is the field from struct
virtio_net_config.mtu. right?
> > > > > > > This is RO field for driver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > there is no guarantee device will not
get a bigger packet.
> > > > > > > Right. That is what I also hinted.
> > > > > > > Hence, allocating buffers worth upto mtu is
safer.
> > > > > > yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When user overrides it, driver can be further
optimized to honor such new
> > > > > > value on rx buffer posting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > no, not without a feature bit promising device
won't get wedged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I mean to say as_it_stands today, driver can decide to
post smaller buffers with larger mtu.
> > > > > Why device should be affected with it?
> > > > > ( I am not proposing such weird configuration but
asking for sake of correctness).
> > > > I am also confused how the device can be wedged in this
case.
> > >
> > > Yea sorry. I misunderstood the code. It can't be.
> >
> > Here's a problem as I see it. Let's say we reduce mtu.
> > Small buffers are added. Now we increase mtu.
> > Device will drop all packets until small buffers are consumed.
> >
> > Should we make this depend on the vq reset ability maybe?
>
> The advantage of this is to keep TX working. Or we can use device
> reset as a fallback if there's no vq reset.
>
> Thanks

Device reset is really annoying in that it loses all the state:
rx filters etc etc.

>
> >
> > > --
> > > MST
> >