From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: wrong CAN frame order in network layer due to SMP? Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:48:09 +0100 Message-ID: <45353231-7efa-7feb-b52d-569a88317cdf@hartkopp.net> References: <1864402.pXgGBBp51L@ws-stein> <3312577.WzoMqUrz0A@ws-stein> <5633679.WId9jP25Qd@ws-stein> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.216]:34596 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751726AbcK2TsY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:48:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5633679.WId9jP25Qd@ws-stein> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alexander Stein Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_Kr=c3=bcger?= Hello Alexander, On 11/29/2016 11:30 AM, Alexander Stein wrote: > On Monday 28 November 2016 21:36:09, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> IIRC Wireshark puts the PF_PACKET socket into some special 'tpacket' >> mode and I don't know whether this has any impact on frame ordering. >> >> At least you may check for: >> https://github.com/linux-can/can-tests/blob/master/tst-packet.c >> >> ... if there's a difference between PF_PACKET and PF_CAN with your OOO >> setup. > > Nope, apparently there is no difference. Got similar results. > > On a side note: I captured an 30 seconds iperf3 run with wireshark 2.2.2 using > the "ASIX Electronics Corp. AX88179 Gigabit Ethernet" adapter (driver: > ax88179_178a). > AFAICS this driver (well usbnet in the end) doesn't use NAPI either and > therefore unsurprisingly I got OOO of TCP frames. > IMHO this is not acceptable at all. Did you have a TCP socket on the receiving host as endpoint for your communication? Maybe this could be named a 'general regression' then. And when this is fixed our problem hopefully gets fixed too ;-) Regards, Oliver