Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 05:20:09 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes
Message-ID: <20230417051816-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20230416074607.292616-1-alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
 <AM0PR04MB4723C6E99A217F51973710F5D49F9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20230416164453-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CACGkMEvFhVyWb5+ET_akPvnjUq04+ZbJC8o_GtNBWqSMGNum8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230417021725-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB4723B8489F8F9AE547393697D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20230417023911-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB47237BFB8BB3A3606CE6A408D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20230417030713-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB4723F3E6AE381AEC36D1AEFED49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR04MB4723F3E6AE381AEC36D1AEFED49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 07:33:58AM +0000, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > > > > > Actually, I think that all you need to do is disable NETIF_F_SG,
> > > > > > and things will work, no?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that this is not so simple, if I understand correctly, by disabling NETIF_F_SG we will never receive a chained skbs to transmit, but we still have more functionality to address, for example:
> > > > > * The TX timeouts.
> > > >
> > > > I don't get it. With a linear skb we can transmit it as long as there's
> > > > space for 2 entries in the vq: header and data. What's the source of the
> > > > timeouts?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not saying that this is not possible, I meant that we need more changes to virtio-net.
> > > The source of the timeouts is from the current implementation of virtnet_poll_tx.
> > >
> > > if (sq->vq->num_free >= 2 + MAX_SKB_FRAGS)
> > >       netif_tx_wake_queue(txq);
> > 
> > Oh right. So this should check NETIF_F_SG then.
> > BTW both ring size and s/g can be tweaked by ethtool, also
> > needs handling.
> > 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> > >
> > > > > * Guest GSO/big MTU (without VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF?), we can't chain page size buffers anymore.
> > > >
> > > > I think we can.  mergeable_min_buf_len will just be large.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I meant that we can't just by clearing NETIF_F_SG, we'll need to change virtio-net a little bit more, for example, the virtnet_set_big_packets function.
> > >
> > 
> > Right - for RX, big_packets_num_skbfrags ignores ring size and that's
> > probably a bug if mtu is very large.
> > 
> 
> So, what do you think, we should fix virtio-net to work with smaller rings? we should fail probe?
> 
> I think that since this never came up until now, there is no big demand to such small rings.

The worry is that once we start failing probe there's just a tiny chance
hosts begin to rely on us failing probe then we won't be able to fix it.
So it depends on the size of the patch I think. So far it seems small enough
that wasting code on failing probe isn't worth it.

-- 
MST