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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox