From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Dykstra Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155 inet_sock_destruct+0x122/0x13a() Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:21:45 +0000 Message-ID: <1250176905.7289.7.camel@Maple> References: <4A76A009.40605@wpkg.org> <1249346282.6479.5.camel@merlyn> <20090803.212007.253928711.davem@davemloft.net> <4A77D2BA.3040304@gmail.com> <4A831F69.1080703@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , mangoo@wpkg.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Vlad Yasevich Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f196.google.com ([209.85.216.196]:38944 "EHLO mail-px0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753115AbZHMPVs (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:21:48 -0400 Received: by pxi34 with SMTP id 34so51839pxi.4 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:21:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A831F69.1080703@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 16:00 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > BTW, I've seen the same issue in 2.6.28 and 2.6.29 while doing a bunch > of NFS-over-UDP testing. I've seen the issue reported in 2.6.27 as well, > but it went by ignored. It's not easy to reproduce as it seems like it > requires quite a bit traffic over over multiple interfaces. I've been unable to reproduce it so far. Has bonding always been present in the cases you've seen, or are multiple independent interfaces sufficient? In the case you reported initially, openvpn was using UDP, but the peer was dead, so there presumably wasn't much traffic from that app. Was there lots of NFS-over-UDP traffic also going on? Where was the independent report on 2.6.27? -- John