af_packet: Don't use skb after dev_queue_xmit()
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: New HID device Philips Remote RC 153_Vista
Next: tpm_infineon: Fix suspend/resume handler for pnp_driver
From: Jarek Poplawski on 18 Jan 2010 15:50 On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote: > Ok - up on the two patches, no DMAR. Some early observations: > > 1. There's an early on MMAP oops (see below). This happens once, at > the completion of the transition to runlevel 5 (I've seen it > entering runlevel 3 as well). This does not recur when runlevels are > subsequently changed. I do not see this when running with DMAR > enabled. OK, you mentioned this oops (actually a warning only) happened during previous tests too. > > 2. The dropped tx packet (DHCP) is a bit harder to recreate, but it > still happens. Btw, I guess you improved the test because you didn't mention it here, even after my explicit question?: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/149171 > Interestingly, I initially saw no dropped packets > with ping - but after I went the DCHP route and eventually > reconnected, I could then cause dropped tx packets with ping. To > clarify: > > a) start throughput > b) ping device - no packet loss - this was true for the entire test run. > c) start throughput again > d) ping - no loss. > e) drop wifi on the device & restart - first attempt worked. Repeat > attempt yielded the dropped DHCPOFFER packets. After about 6 tries, > the device reconnected to wifi. > f) ping again (after the reconnection) - packet loss rate about 80%. > g) simultaneously ping the wifi router - no loss. > h) After a while, packets are no longer dropped during ping. If I > manage to cause the dhcp drop again, and then ping after the device > finally reconnects, packet loss is significant for a while (maybe 30 > sec to a minute). Then things return to normal. Note that the packet > loss continues even if the reported throughput drops to nil. > i) I can't cause the initial packet loss at RX rates below about > 30,000KBPS (as reported by nethogs). At rates over 40 I can > reproduce this on this set of patches & config about 60% of the > time. I forgot to mention, but did you try to check if these lost ping packets are "being dropped somewhere after wireshark sees them and before hitting the wire" like DHCPOFFER? Aren't there any sky2 warnings/resets while this happens? Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Michael Breuer on 18 Jan 2010 16:00 On 1/18/2010 3:46 PM, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote: > >> Ok - up on the two patches, no DMAR. Some early observations: >> >> 1. There's an early on MMAP oops (see below). This happens once, at >> the completion of the transition to runlevel 5 (I've seen it >> entering runlevel 3 as well). This does not recur when runlevels are >> subsequently changed. I do not see this when running with DMAR >> enabled. >> > OK, you mentioned this oops (actually a warning only) happened during > previous tests too. > Yes - dk if it's significant or not. Only obvious difference between DMAR and not. > >> 2. The dropped tx packet (DHCP) is a bit harder to recreate, but it >> still happens. >> > Btw, I guess you improved the test because you didn't mention it here, > even after my explicit question?: > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/149171 > I had been focusing on the hangs - dhcp causing the initial crash from December. After things stabilized with the af patch & skb may pull I started noticing the dropped tx packets. I reported the TX loss on the 16th of January after confirming the issue. > >> Interestingly, I initially saw no dropped packets >> with ping - but after I went the DCHP route and eventually >> reconnected, I could then cause dropped tx packets with ping. To >> clarify: >> >> a) start throughput >> b) ping device - no packet loss - this was true for the entire test run. >> c) start throughput again >> d) ping - no loss. >> e) drop wifi on the device& restart - first attempt worked. Repeat >> attempt yielded the dropped DHCPOFFER packets. After about 6 tries, >> the device reconnected to wifi. >> f) ping again (after the reconnection) - packet loss rate about 80%. >> g) simultaneously ping the wifi router - no loss. >> h) After a while, packets are no longer dropped during ping. If I >> manage to cause the dhcp drop again, and then ping after the device >> finally reconnects, packet loss is significant for a while (maybe 30 >> sec to a minute). Then things return to normal. Note that the packet >> loss continues even if the reported throughput drops to nil. >> i) I can't cause the initial packet loss at RX rates below about >> 30,000KBPS (as reported by nethogs). At rates over 40 I can >> reproduce this on this set of patches& config about 60% of the >> time. >> > I forgot to mention, but did you try to check if these lost ping > packets are "being dropped somewhere after wireshark sees them and > before hitting the wire" like DHCPOFFER? Aren't there any sky2 > warnings/resets while this happens? > > Jarek P. > Yes. There are no errors, and no statistics anywhere that I know to look reflect the loss. Nothing in netstat; ethtool -S; etc. The only loss reported is RX. The recent TX warnings/resets happened while the machine was up for several days and while unattended and under high RX load. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Stephen Hemminger on 18 Jan 2010 16:10 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:56:45 -0500 Michael Breuer <mbreuer(a)majjas.com> wrote: > >> 2. The dropped tx packet (DHCP) is a bit harder to recreate, but it > >> still happens. > >> You might want to use tc filter rule to set priority of DHCP packets higher. This would cause them to be in a separate queue and eliminate the problem. -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jarek Poplawski on 18 Jan 2010 16:10 On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:00:38PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:56:45 -0500 > Michael Breuer <mbreuer(a)majjas.com> wrote: > > > >> 2. The dropped tx packet (DHCP) is a bit harder to recreate, but it > > >> still happens. > > >> > > You might want to use tc filter rule to set priority of DHCP packets > higher. This would cause them to be in a separate queue and eliminate > the problem. > But it looks like they are dropped in TX after passing a qdisc (and wireshark). Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jarek Poplawski on 18 Jan 2010 16:30
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:56:45PM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote: > On 1/18/2010 3:46 PM, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote: > >>Ok - up on the two patches, no DMAR. Some early observations: > >> > >>1. There's an early on MMAP oops (see below). This happens once, at > >>the completion of the transition to runlevel 5 (I've seen it > >>entering runlevel 3 as well). This does not recur when runlevels are > >>subsequently changed. I do not see this when running with DMAR > >>enabled. > >OK, you mentioned this oops (actually a warning only) happened during > >previous tests too. > Yes - dk if it's significant or not. Only obvious difference between > DMAR and not. OK, let's try (as long as possible) if it can break so hard as with DMAR. > >>2. The dropped tx packet (DHCP) is a bit harder to recreate, but it > >>still happens. > >Btw, I guess you improved the test because you didn't mention it here, > >even after my explicit question?: > >http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/149171 > I had been focusing on the hangs - dhcp causing the initial crash > from December. After things stabilized with the af patch & skb may > pull I started noticing the dropped tx packets. I reported the TX > loss on the 16th of January after confirming the issue. OK, but we need to establish some status quo after these patches before any new things (including DMAR), so I'd suggest trying this config really longer and harder. > >>Interestingly, I initially saw no dropped packets > >>with ping - but after I went the DCHP route and eventually > >>reconnected, I could then cause dropped tx packets with ping. To > >>clarify: > >> > >>a) start throughput > >>b) ping device - no packet loss - this was true for the entire test run. > >>c) start throughput again > >>d) ping - no loss. > >>e) drop wifi on the device& restart - first attempt worked. Repeat > >>attempt yielded the dropped DHCPOFFER packets. After about 6 tries, > >>the device reconnected to wifi. > >>f) ping again (after the reconnection) - packet loss rate about 80%. > >>g) simultaneously ping the wifi router - no loss. > >>h) After a while, packets are no longer dropped during ping. If I > >>manage to cause the dhcp drop again, and then ping after the device > >>finally reconnects, packet loss is significant for a while (maybe 30 > >>sec to a minute). Then things return to normal. Note that the packet > >>loss continues even if the reported throughput drops to nil. > >>i) I can't cause the initial packet loss at RX rates below about > >>30,000KBPS (as reported by nethogs). At rates over 40 I can > >>reproduce this on this set of patches& config about 60% of the > >>time. > >I forgot to mention, but did you try to check if these lost ping > >packets are "being dropped somewhere after wireshark sees them and > >before hitting the wire" like DHCPOFFER? Aren't there any sky2 > >warnings/resets while this happens? > > > >Jarek P. > Yes. There are no errors, and no statistics anywhere that I know to > look reflect the loss. Nothing in netstat; ethtool -S; etc. The only > loss reported is RX. The recent TX warnings/resets happened while > the machine was up for several days and while unattended and under > high RX load. Please check "tc -s qdisc" each time as well. Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |