Re: [REGRESSION] Warning in tcp_fastretrans_alert() of net/ipv4/tcp_input.c

[Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>]

Hello.

With net.ipv4.tcp_fack set to 0 the warning still appears:

===
» sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_fack     
net.ipv4.tcp_fack = 0

» LC_TIME=C dmesg -T | grep WARNING
[Fri Sep 15 20:40:30 2017] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 711 at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:
2826 tcp_fastretrans_alert+0x7c8/0x990
[Fri Sep 15 20:40:30 2017] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 711 at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:
2826 tcp_fastretrans_alert+0x7c8/0x990
[Fri Sep 15 20:48:37 2017] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 711 at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:
2826 tcp_fastretrans_alert+0x7c8/0x990
[Fri Sep 15 20:48:55 2017] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 711 at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:
2826 tcp_fastretrans_alert+0x7c8/0x990

» ps -up 711
USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME COMMAND
root       711  4.3  0.0      0     0 ?        S    18:12   7:23 [irq/123-
enp3s0]
===

Any suggestions?

On pátek 15. září 2017 16:03:00 CEST Neal Cardwell wrote:
> Thanks for testing that. That is a very useful data point.
> 
> I was able to cook up a packetdrill test that could put the connection
> in CA_Disorder with retransmitted packets out, but not in CA_Open. So
> we do not yet have a test case to reproduce this.
> 
> We do not see this warning on our fleet at Google. One significant
> difference I see between our environment and yours is that it seems
> you run with FACK enabled:
> 
>   net.ipv4.tcp_fack = 1
> 
> Note that FACK was disabled by default (since it was replaced by RACK)
> between kernel v4.10 and v4.11. And this is exactly the time when this
> bug started manifesting itself for you and some others, but not our
> fleet. So my new working hypothesis would be that this warning is due
> to a behavior that only shows up in kernels >=4.11 when FACK is
> enabled.
> 
> Would you be able to disable FACK ("sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_fack=0" at
> boot, or net.ipv4.tcp_fack=0 in /etc/sysctl.conf, or equivalent),
> reboot, and test the kernel for a few days to see if the warning still
> pops up?
> 
> thanks,
> neal
> 
> [ps: apologies for the previous, mis-formatted post...]