Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost-net stops sending to virito pmd -- already fixed?

["Ouyang, Changchun" <changchun.ouyang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Larose
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:05 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] vhost-net stops sending to virito pmd -- already
> fixed?
> 
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2015-09-11 12:32, Kyle Larose:
> > > Looking through the version tree for virtio_rxtx.c, I saw the
> > > following
> > > commit:
> > >
> > >
> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/lib/librte_pmd_virtio?id=8c09c20f
> > > b4cde76e53d87bd50acf2b441ecf6eb8
> > >
> > > Does anybody know offhand if the issue fixed by that commit could be
> > > the root cause of what I am seeing?
> >
> > I won't have the definitive answer but I would like to use your
> > question to highlight a common issue in git messages:
> >
> > PLEASE, authors of fixes, explain the bug you are fixing and how it
> > can be reproduced. Good commit messages are REALLY read and useful.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> 
> I've figured out what happened. It has nothing to do with the fix I pasted
> above. Instead, the issue has to do with running low on mbufs.
> 
> Here's the general logic:
> 
> 1. If packets are not queued, return
> 2. Fetch each queued packet, as an mbuf, into the provided array. This may
> involve some merging/etc 3. Try to fill the virtio receive ring with new mbufs
>   3.a. If we fail to allocate an mbuf, break out of the refill loop 4. Update the
> receive ring information and kick the host
> 
> This is obviously a simplification, but the key point is 3.a. If we hit this logic
> when the virtio receive ring is completely used up, we essentially lock up.
> The host will have no buffers with which to queue packets, so the next time
> we poll, we will hit case 1. However, since we hit case 1, we will not allocate
> mbufs to the virtio receive ring, regardless of how many are now free. Rinse
> and repeat; we are stuck until the pmd is restarted or the link is restarted.
> 
> This is very easy to reproduce when the mbuf pool is fairly small, and packets
> are being passed to worker threads/processes which may increase the
> length of the pipeline.
> 
> I took a quick look at the ixgbe driver, and it looks like it checks if it needs to
> allocate mbufs to the ring before trying to pull packets off the nic. Should we
> not be doing something similar for virtio? Rather than breaking out early if no
> packets are queued, we should first make sure there are resources with
> which to queue packets!

Try to allocate mbuf and refill the vring descriptor when 1 is hit,
This way probably address your issue.

> 
> One solution here is to increase the mbuf pool to a size where such
> exhaustion is impossible, but that doesn't seem like a graceful solution. For
> example, it may be desirable to drop packets rather than have a large
> memory pool, and becoming stuck under such a situation is not good. Further,
> it isn't easy to know the exact size required. You may end up wasting a bunch
> of resources allocating far more than necessary, or you may unknowingly
> under allocate, only to find out once your application has been deployed into
> production, and it's dropping everything on the floor.
> 
> Does anyone have thoughts on this? I took a look at virtio_rxtx and head and
> I didn't see anything resembling my suggestion.
> 
> Comments would be appreciated. Thanks,
> 
> Kyle