From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Assorted mvneta fixes Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:24:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20140114072453.GC27536@1wt.eu> References: <1389519069-1619-1-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <87ob3hovkf.fsf@natisbad.org> <20140112222233.GG16576@1wt.eu> <87d2jvfr1m.fsf@natisbad.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Petazzoni , Gregory CLEMENT , Eric Dumazet To: Arnaud Ebalard Return-path: Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:55346 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751642AbaANHZC (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:25:02 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d2jvfr1m.fsf@natisbad.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Arnaud, On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:36:05PM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote: > Hi, > > Willy Tarreau writes: > > >> Funny enough, I spent some time this week-end trying to find the root > >> cause of some kernel freezes and panics appearing randomly after some GB > >> read on a ReadyNAS 102 configured as a NFS server. > >> > >> I tested your fixes and performance series together on top of current > >> 3.13.0-rc7 and I am now unable to reproduce the freeze and panics after > >> having read more than the 300GB of traffic from the NAS: following > >> bandwith with a bwm-ng shows the rate is also far more stable than w/ > >> previous driver logic (55MB/sec). So, FWIW: > >> > >> Tested-by: Arnaud Ebalard > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > BTW, the "performance" series is not supposed to fix anything, > > I was lazy and wanted to give the whole set a try in a single pass. > > > > and still it seems difficult to me to find what patch might have fixed > > your problem. Maybe the timer used in place of an IRQ has an even > > worse effect than what we could imagine ? > > I guess so. > > > >> Willy, I can extend the test to RN2120 if you think it is useful to also > >> do additional tests on a dual-core armada XP. > > > > It's up to you. These patches have run extensively on my Mirabox (Armada370), > > OpenBlocks AX3 (ArmadaXP dual core) and the XP-GP board (ArmadaXP quad core), > > and fixed the stability issues and performance issues I was facing there. But > > you may be interested in testing them with your workloads (none of my boxes > > is used as an NFS server, NAS or whatever, they mainly see HTTP and very small > > packets used in stress tests). > > Well, I spent the evening on my RN104 (Aramda370 w/ 2 GbE ifaces) and my > RN2120 (Dual core ArmadaXP w/ 2GbE ifaces) using one as a router and > serving NFS traffic from the other (and then changing roles). I passed > hundreds of GB of TCP/NFS traffic and did not see any issue. > > Additionally, FWIW, testing both using netperf show they easily support > routing traffic w/ line rate perf. > > Regarding the patches, the problem they solve impacts all Armada boards > (370 and XP) which are used for network tasks. I think it would be nice > to have those backported to stable. I can commit to do the tests of the > backports both on XP and 370 hardware down to 3.12 or 3.11 kernel if it > can help. I think so. I've been successfully using them from 3.10 and upwards. Cheers, Willy