From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com>,
linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mchehab@infradead.org, markus@trippelsdorf.de,
tony.luck@intel.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] packet loss with PROVE_LOCKING, bisected to EDAC fix
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:18:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160322081816.GH25010@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160322053154.GA3688@pd.tnic>
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 06:31:54AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:42:09PM +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was testing something on an old server (Dell T105 opteron) and noticed
> > packet loss after updating the kernel from 3.10 to 4.5. The test was:
> >
> > On Dell run: iperf -s
> > On another system: iperf3 -c dell -u -b 20M -l 1k -t 1000
> >
> > This sends a 20mbit UDP stream to the Dell. It works fine normally (0%
> > packet loss), but when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is enabled there is high
> > (35%) packet loss. (DEBUG_LOCKDEP also seems to cause packet loss)
> >
> > The packet loss bisected back to:
> >
> > commit 88d84ac97378c2f1d5fec9af1e8b7d9a662d6b00
> > Author: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> > Date: Fri Jul 19 12:28:25 2013 +0200
> >
> > EDAC: Fix lockdep splat
>
> Hmm, how would that cause a packet loss?!
The previous bug would disable lockdep and thereby avoid much of the
normal overhead associated with lockdep. I suspect the packet loss is a
result of increased overhead.
IOW, everything works as expected.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-22 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-21 21:42 [BUG] packet loss with PROVE_LOCKING, bisected to EDAC fix Chris Bainbridge
2016-03-22 5:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2016-03-22 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-03-22 9:16 ` Chris Bainbridge
2016-03-22 11:12 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160322081816.GH25010@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chris.bainbridge@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markus@trippelsdorf.de \
--cc=mchehab@infradead.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.