From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F537258ED1 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760084486; cv=none; b=ewz5IXz3YM111MTaOs/7k5OuXCXfC/WA+1NLTzUZZ6aLrzEiORdXHEa/s9BCTzdEmPflB+/M+gzCLd76feOb9CCH2wyLLxBlFXklCIuAycK29F71MAyds6toylWiWCg3cbD4Achz+TXPjf88CtgzSwIbH9uyiJg7WUuafy+7Scs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760084486; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x8uSAw0JIa7F8V/C5xMZKtucx18B6WjhRuKysymhOes=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SouczR2tJeF6t0Kdh+Fu8JEQ5CQJMMH8StgbtCV+9ZitUQEBBUZqoeavNh2EqCA1kSW3AF2ZqKWshpV06QqGkiyVFknuEKncZx2HCcZGz7wtDJgyRjqRfKt1D23fJ3alnikgBJyLHrL9lytjp0hgKganrncmIkWrTCVfh7KBJy4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=HE2bKdry; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="HE2bKdry" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1760084484; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eCL6bhO8Nb88/ZlOKaZn32lbcshkKaopvkravVW07Vw=; b=HE2bKdryd4I1qU2iNTkfHlHaDbn2b37Ez2Hadq3XZBoEyGqT/8tBDIuNxX8ttyCWybZLm/ 28r7xNatXPbG99b6pM/JfQsgqhPHn03PROA7j8zRButKI0OSsFn1TyIPqUoloxh3mq+VRG rCCT0KNxmlr2zZ4emtYRlCni2i8Hs4M= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-325-1BR1v8AzNi6cuf_7LpePvA-1; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 04:21:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 1BR1v8AzNi6cuf_7LpePvA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 1BR1v8AzNi6cuf_7LpePvA_1760084482 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-46e3a049abaso11420185e9.0 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 01:21:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1760084481; x=1760689281; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :to:from:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eCL6bhO8Nb88/ZlOKaZn32lbcshkKaopvkravVW07Vw=; b=oWZykIG9fnSXoRkEoTLQNPdDWYYJJILmK+WdijiuaYmWIY/tapm70pv3CAnXnTOaey mkLO0zSjeuv9PUGmt2fh8wRplb1BhguhQcjLUh0aF0JuRkyxpdzEHhkb08Y1pQr0yLZi sMz69VcJNI6jU9WlhREFj5aeCXvTy8tw8NqIb5YQGbEm0bN6uQNdrD5bJZ0m8YURlU8b h8olu9QSWOvNaEwapViP75dRpkr+83GAJJzR1BvdpNtd8ixPjAWJeTpQr+dGUWxLWaMt wMZ0xUSWfURhxGVCSL2R9TS2b/4mMRkCJMZh8/+rTQrWMDh1EafOiss6Ux3CK90eHIQx OaVQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUghT6v1LzAPy5oYj0a46MZpYSLwj/1O2nYvoPw+dz9AawzK5T1sescEFfUFdmx+8cHPR07BQ==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyODtrWgru9UyUZ4l3Q23X6uXzqQTobIhxgEy7fMYTE8FGbeUtr UANeJrg3J7Is+HdZyAbhYO7oBHjSxaRO/OnU3YI07p/yF7LwMQKW1Mrwv4L7gYAklmtvL9ccW4/ zql/7222EVZm9E8JGT1qBewlSGot4IYaCTVVIVVZDUUJDElhyt1utjFpA X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctH8A3DENq1UsUtgLzYcy9ql9DXmknV8beN/vYFMyIBddwZjQFJcZho6MV6UON N7xASHVfy7Q26yzlEfcUSOvky6s+kwgbVsuO9hFO8oGc9MFzqD0vscsArwCWvpFhhndt1GU9Low ufz345vBV7gDhsm5zze97wFduN7/GGDolgA9qDgle38yjNbTYHIzBZUUWgd3GFCvP23jsmSi1N1 TaYOm/ZfhlyRTN88DUataqswRRYHaitva2YI6/2rDPC+BfuxgjrfmCZAoM19Mz79TnLYCISInOA Q1i2ebEN0XehJss9tIPPSiCbrwO0uoLVSp0Pdn0LbnHbzn/cgGzCDvh8gAf9aJBXcjlS83mD21t Z11Z37aDmfGsl X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4ed1:b0:46f:b42e:ed85 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-46fb42eedfcmr19697655e9.38.1760084481634; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 01:21:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGP42uZDe58VHCnZ4wRrYsTMYOjxozIEnkZmpoxtxm7gxQdrMkhBabGTCsJ1a0jQGGBKPybsA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4ed1:b0:46f:b42e:ed85 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-46fb42eedfcmr19697445e9.38.1760084481169; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 01:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a0d:3344:2712:7e10:4d59:d956:544f:d65c? ([2a0d:3344:2712:7e10:4d59:d956:544f:d65c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-426ce5cfe74sm2876203f8f.35.2025.10.10.01.21.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2025 01:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53ed629a-d364-470f-8a52-5a34692f0da7@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:21:19 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 mptcp-next 00/10] mptcp: introduce backlog processing From: Paolo Abeni To: Geliang Tang , Matthieu Baerts , mptcp@lists.linux.dev References: <2c9f131e-ef34-4916-8aab-e1420e1ae90b@kernel.org> <2389029f56a9fa496b59be7655987e6d9c6362f2.camel@kernel.org> <8a8feb1d-ad10-4ba4-a448-db8a0e45c7c3@redhat.com> <6d3545fc-f342-4532-b1c3-fb96d9c79fe6@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: BIKyvHIjc1xqkNomBD0nIrzW_4VO9_CV3Ev3ai2AWUI_1760084482 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/9/25 3:58 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > @Geliang: if you reproduce the issue multiple times, are there any > common patterns ? i.e. sender files considerably larger than the client > one, or only a specific subsets of all the test-cases failing, or ... Other questions: - Can you please share your setup details (VM vs baremetal, debug config vs non debug, vmg vs plain qemu, number of [v]cores...)? I can't repro the issue locally. - Can you please share a pcap capture _and_ the selftest text output for the same failing test? In the log shared previously the sender had data queued at the mptcp-level, but not at TCP-level. In the shared pcap capture the receiver sends a couple of acks opening the tcp-level and mptcp-level window, but the sender never replies. In such scenario the incoming ack should reach ack_update_msk() -> __mptcp_check_push() -> __mptcp_subflow_push_pending() (or mptcp_release_cb -> __mptcp_push_pending() ) -> mptcp_sendmsg_frag() but such chain is apparently broken somewhere in the failing scenario. Could you please add probe points the the mentioned funtions and perf record the test, to try to see where the mentioned chain is interrupted? Thanks, Paolo