public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thockin@hockin.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.15.1: UDP fragments >27208 bytes lost with ne2k-pci on DP83815 (was Re: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS (ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:31:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vew1vd03.fsf_-_@amaterasu.srvr.nix> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1138640968.30641.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (Trond Myklebust's message of "Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:09:28 -0500")

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust suggested tentatively:
> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 16:55 +0000, Nix wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust stipulated:
>> > As a general rule of thumb: if tcpdump/ethereal can see the reply on the
>> > client, then the engine socket should see it too. If tcpdump is indeed
>> > seeing those replies, you should check the RPC code by
>> > setting /proc/sys/sunrpc/rpc_debug to 1.
>> 
>> tcpdump is seeing them.
> 
> The complete packets, including all fragments?

Will check. Maybe one fragment or something is getting lost
(but if so, it's getting lost terribly *consistently*, as in,
every single time).

>> I *guess* that the `failed to lock transport' is the underlying error...
>> time to add some debugging and find out what task is locking the
>> transport. Back soon, must rebuild the kernel and reboot to clear this
>> lock ;)
> 
> Nope. The congestion window is 1 request, and you do indeed appear to
> have one request on the "pending" queue. The problem in the above trace
> is a complete lack of data_ready messages, meaning that the socket is
> never seeing any complete packets come in.

O*kay*. I'll do some tcpdumps on both sides and compare them.


... you are quite right. I'm mounting with an rsize and wsize of 32768
(i.e., the default negotiated between a recent Linux NFS client and
kernel server), and, completely consistently, 31504 bytes are sent and
*only 27208 bytes are received*. This is so consistent that there's no
way that this could be due to network congestion (unless it's getting
jammed up inside the receiving NIC or something: it's an NE2K card and
they're rather crap so maybe the card is just too slow: my determination
to replace the card has just gone up a notch. But nonetheless if it was
getting lost by the card I'd see TCP retransmissions, which `netstat -s'
assures me I do not).

This explains why I don't see a problem with DNS: the number of DNS
packets >27208 bytes can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

Captures are available, but I gathered about half a minute's traffic
so they're quite large (1Mb apiece).

Tim? Any ideas? Is anyone else with this card seeing this problem?

-- 
`I won't make a secret of the fact that your statement/question
 sent a wave of shock and horror through us.' --- David Anderson

  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-30 17:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-01-28 22:52 2.6.15.1: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS (ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII Nix
2006-01-29  1:59 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-29 14:24   ` Nix
2006-01-29 19:56     ` Nix
2006-01-29 20:21       ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-29 21:54         ` Nix
2006-01-29 22:02           ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-30 16:55             ` Nix
2006-01-30 17:09               ` Trond Myklebust
2006-01-30 17:31                 ` Nix [this message]
2006-01-30 19:03                   ` 2.6.15.1: UDP fragments >27208 bytes lost with ne2k-pci on DP83815 (was Re: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS (ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII) thockin
2006-01-30 19:07                     ` 2.6.15.1: UDP fragments >27208 bytes lost with ne2k-pci on DP83815 Nix
2006-01-30 19:32                       ` thockin
2006-01-30 19:49                         ` Nix
2006-01-30 22:18                           ` Nix
2006-01-30 19:36   ` 2.6.15.1: persistent nasty hang in sync_page killing NFS(ne2k-pci / DP83815-related?), i686/PIII Roger Heflin

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=87vew1vd03.fsf_-_@amaterasu.srvr.nix \
    --to=nix@esperi.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=thockin@hockin.org \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
    /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