[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value
From: |
Tobias Fiebig |
Subject: |
RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Nov 2022 03:49:46 +0100 |
Heho,
Ok, I just learned more C than I ever wanted to. There is a bit more amiss here
(ll from 7d7238c72b983cff5064734349d2d45be9c6282c):
In line 1916 of rtl8139.c we set txdw0; If we calculate the MSS at this point,
it is consistently 12 below requested, but generally accurate. The bits that
flip re: -12 must happen somewhere in the Linux kernel driver (ll 764 in
drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/8139cp.c?); Didn't look there in-depth yet (and do
not plan to, maybe one of you has more experience with this?) Given the
consistency of this deviation, maybe just doing a +12 might be more straight
forward.
However, in ll2030ff we reset a couple of status indicators. These overlap with
the fields for the MSS, leading to inaccurate values being calculated later on;
For example, requesting an MSS of 767 leads to an MSS of 3 being calculated by
your patch; Similarly, requesting 1000 leads to 268. At least for the latter I
see packets of that size being generated on the wire (which should also not
happen, as the MSS should never be below 536; maybe a check could help here to
make sure we are not trusting arbitrary values from the driver, esp. given the
bobble of sec issues around PMTUD/MSS; Technically, now that MSS is defined
earlier, we could also move this closer to the start of TSO large frame
handling).
Below is also a draft patch following my suggestions (save txdw0, +12, check
for <536) and some examples for what I described above, which I can on your
last patch. Please note again that this is essentially the first time I do
anything in C; Also, I wasn't sure what has less perf impact (save the whole
32bit of txdw0 even though it might not be needed vs. also doing the shift/&
even though it might not be needed).
Apart from that, my patch seems to work, and the MSS gets set correctly;
Someone else testing would be nice, though:
# MSS_requested=1320
RTL8139: +++ C+ mode offloaded task TSO IP data 2648 frame data 2668 specified
MSS=1320
# MSS_requested=1000
RTL8139: +++ C+ mode offloaded task TSO IP data 2008 frame data 2028 specified
MSS=1000
# MSS_requested=600
RTL8139: +++ C+ mode offloaded task TSO IP data 1796 frame data 1816 specified
MSS=600
With best regards,
Tobias
diff --git a/hw/net/rtl8139.c b/hw/net/rtl8139.c
index e6643e3c9d..59321460b9 100644
--- a/hw/net/rtl8139.c
+++ b/hw/net/rtl8139.c
@@ -77,7 +77,6 @@
( ( input ) & ( size - 1 ) )
#define ETHER_TYPE_LEN 2
-#define ETH_MTU 1500
#define VLAN_TCI_LEN 2
#define VLAN_HLEN (ETHER_TYPE_LEN + VLAN_TCI_LEN)
@@ -1934,8 +1933,9 @@ static int rtl8139_cplus_transmit_one(RTL8139State *s)
#define CP_TX_LS (1<<28)
/* large send packet flag */
#define CP_TX_LGSEN (1<<27)
-/* large send MSS mask, bits 16...25 */
-#define CP_TC_LGSEN_MSS_MASK ((1 << 12) - 1)
+/* large send MSS mask, bits 16...26 */
+#define CP_TC_LGSEN_MSS_SHIFT 16
+#define CP_TC_LGSEN_MSS_MASK ((1 << 11) - 1)
/* IP checksum offload flag */
#define CP_TX_IPCS (1<<18)
@@ -2027,6 +2027,9 @@ static int rtl8139_cplus_transmit_one(RTL8139State *s)
s->currCPlusTxDesc = 0;
}
+ /* store unaltered txdw0 for later use in MSS calculation*/
+ uint32_t txdw0_save = txdw0;
+
/* transfer ownership to target */
txdw0 &= ~CP_TX_OWN;
@@ -2149,10 +2152,12 @@ static int rtl8139_cplus_transmit_one(RTL8139State *s)
goto skip_offload;
}
- int large_send_mss = (txdw0 >> 16) & CP_TC_LGSEN_MSS_MASK;
+ /* set large_send_mss from txdw0 before overlapping mss fields
were cleared */
+ int large_send_mss = ((txdw0_save >> CP_TC_LGSEN_MSS_SHIFT) &
+ CP_TC_LGSEN_MSS_MASK) + 12;
- DPRINTF("+++ C+ mode offloaded task TSO MTU=%d IP data %d "
- "frame data %d specified MSS=%d\n", ETH_MTU,
+ DPRINTF("+++ C+ mode offloaded task TSO IP data %d "
+ "frame data %d specified MSS=%d\n",
ip_data_len, saved_size - ETH_HLEN, large_send_mss);
int tcp_send_offset = 0;
@@ -2177,9 +2182,13 @@ static int rtl8139_cplus_transmit_one(RTL8139State *s)
goto skip_offload;
}
- /* ETH_MTU = ip header len + tcp header len + payload */
+ /* MSS too small? Min MSS = 536 */
+ if (tcp_hlen + hlen >= large_send_mss || 535 >=
large_send_mss) {
+ goto skip_offload;
+ }
+
int tcp_data_len = ip_data_len - tcp_hlen;
- int tcp_chunk_size = ETH_MTU - hlen - tcp_hlen;
+ int tcp_chunk_size = large_send_mss - hlen - tcp_hlen;
DPRINTF("+++ C+ mode TSO IP data len %d TCP hlen %d TCP "
"data len %d TCP chunk size %d\n", ip_data_len,
Some examples (with additional DPRINT capturing txdw0/MSS at various places;
txdw0_0=ll1923, txdw0_4=ll2029, txdw0_5=ll2039, txdw0_cur=ll2153):
MSS_requested=556
+++ txdw0_cur=18000440 txdw0_cur_shift=1800 txdw0_cur_MSS=0;
+++ txdw0_0=9a200440 txdw0_0_shift=9a20 txdw0_0_MSS=544;
+++ txdw0_1=9a200440 txdw0_1_shift=9a20 txdw0_1_MSS=544;
+++ txdw0_2=9a200440 txdw0_2_shift=9a20 txdw0_2_MSS=544;
+++ txdw0_3=9a200440 txdw0_3_shift=9a20 txdw0_3_MSS=544;
+++ txdw0_4=9a200440 txdw0_4_shift=9a20 txdw0_4_MSS=544;
+++ txdw0_5=18000440 txdw0_5_shift=1800 txdw0_5_MSS=0;
+++ txdw0_6=18000440 txdw0_6_shift=1800 txdw0_6_MSS=0;
+++ txdw0_7=18000440 txdw0_7_shift=1800 txdw0_7_MSS=0;
MSS_requested=800
+++ txdw0_0=9b140cab txdw0_0_shift=9b14 txdw0_0_MSS=788;
+++ txdw0_1=9b140cab txdw0_1_shift=9b14 txdw0_1_MSS=788;
+++ txdw0_2=9b140cab txdw0_2_shift=9b14 txdw0_2_MSS=788;
+++ txdw0_3=9b140cab txdw0_3_shift=9b14 txdw0_3_MSS=788;
+++ txdw0_4=9b140cab txdw0_4_shift=9b14 txdw0_4_MSS=788;
+++ txdw0_5=19040cab txdw0_5_shift=1904 txdw0_5_MSS=260;
+++ txdw0_6=19040cab txdw0_6_shift=1904 txdw0_6_MSS=260;
+++ txdw0_7=19040cab txdw0_7_shift=1904 txdw0_7_MSS=260;
MSS_requested=1050
+++ txdw0_cur=1c0e07bf txdw0_cur_shift=1c0e txdw0_cur_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_0=9c0e07bf txdw0_0_shift=9c0e txdw0_0_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_1=9c0e07bf txdw0_1_shift=9c0e txdw0_1_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_2=9c0e07bf txdw0_2_shift=9c0e txdw0_2_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_3=9c0e07bf txdw0_3_shift=9c0e txdw0_3_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_4=9c0e07bf txdw0_4_shift=9c0e txdw0_4_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_5=1c0e07bf txdw0_5_shift=1c0e txdw0_5_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_6=1c0e07bf txdw0_6_shift=1c0e txdw0_6_MSS=1038;
+++ txdw0_7=1c0e07bf txdw0_7_shift=1c0e txdw0_7_MSS=1038;
MSS_requested=1060
+++ txdw0_cur=1c0809ff txdw0_cur_shift=1c08 txdw0_cur_MSS=1032;
+++ txdw0_0=9c1809ff txdw0_0_shift=9c18 txdw0_0_MSS=1048;
+++ txdw0_1=9c1809ff txdw0_1_shift=9c18 txdw0_1_MSS=1048;
+++ txdw0_2=9c1809ff txdw0_2_shift=9c18 txdw0_2_MSS=1048;
+++ txdw0_3=9c1809ff txdw0_3_shift=9c18 txdw0_3_MSS=1048;
+++ txdw0_4=9c1809ff txdw0_4_shift=9c18 txdw0_4_MSS=1048;
+++ txdw0_5=1c0809ff txdw0_5_shift=1c08 txdw0_5_MSS=1032;
+++ txdw0_6=1c0809ff txdw0_6_shift=1c08 txdw0_6_MSS=1032;
+++ txdw0_7=1c0809ff txdw0_7_shift=1c08 txdw0_7_MSS=1032;
MSS_requested=1320
+++ txdw0_cur=1d0c0b37 txdw0_cur_shift=1d0c txdw0_cur_MSS=1292;
+++ txdw0_0=9d1c0b37 txdw0_0_shift=9d1c txdw0_0_MSS=1308;
+++ txdw0_1=9d1c0b37 txdw0_1_shift=9d1c txdw0_1_MSS=1308;
+++ txdw0_2=9d1c0b37 txdw0_2_shift=9d1c txdw0_2_MSS=1308;
+++ txdw0_3=9d1c0b37 txdw0_3_shift=9d1c txdw0_3_MSS=1308;
+++ txdw0_4=9d1c0b37 txdw0_4_shift=9d1c txdw0_4_MSS=1308;
+++ txdw0_5=1d0c0b37 txdw0_5_shift=1d0c txdw0_5_MSS=1292;
+++ txdw0_6=1d0c0b37 txdw0_6_shift=1d0c txdw0_6_MSS=1292;
+++ txdw0_7=1d0c0b37 txdw0_7_shift=1d0c txdw0_7_MSS=1292;
- [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2022/11/15
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/15
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/15
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Jason Wang, 2022/11/16
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/16
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/16
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2022/11/16
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value,
Tobias Fiebig <=
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2022/11/17
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2022/11/17
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/17
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2022/11/17
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/17
- RE: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Tobias Fiebig, 2022/11/17
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2022/11/17
- Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Jason Wang, 2022/11/18
Re: [PATCH for-7.2] rtl8139: honor large send MSS value, Jason Wang, 2022/11/15