From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: iproute2 / tbf with large burst seems broken again Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:49:26 +0000 Message-ID: <20090831084926.GE5005@ff.dom.local> References: <20090826215956.GA5148@ami.dom.local> <20090831053026.GA5005@ff.dom.local> <20090830.223239.185830289.davem@davemloft.net> <200908311118.43024.denys@visp.net.lb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Denys Fedoryschenko Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f217.google.com ([209.85.220.217]:47805 "EHLO mail-fx0-f217.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751010AbZHaIta (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:49:30 -0400 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so2620929fxm.37 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200908311118.43024.denys@visp.net.lb> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:18:42AM +0300, Denys Fedoryschenko wrote: > On Monday 31 August 2009 08:32:39 David Miller wrote: > > From: Jarek Poplawski > > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:30:27 +0000 > > > > > Actually, I think now, after 2.6.31, this patch might be a bit too > > > late. If people hit this problem they probably should've fixed it > > > until -next already, so let's forget about this patch until there are > > > more such reports. > > > > Ok. > > > > > Btw, I guess, Denys could submit some warnings into iproute's code > > > and/or documentation, as he proposed earlier. > > > > Yeah sounds like a good idea. > > 2.6.31-rc8 i got dmesg flooded. First message appearing even without patch, i > will make sure now what is a reason of that (i have HTB classes on ifb0, and > TBF on pppX). > > [ 155.199923] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 158.425096] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 158.425176] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 162.549083] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 162.549159] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 162.601892] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 162.601968] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 183.719070] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 183.719146] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 192.147105] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 192.147181] Attempt to kill tasklet from interrupt > [ 192.604718] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 193.085459] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 193.102169] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 194.100395] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 196.010286] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 196.014330] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 196.100723] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 196.104619] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 196.998374] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 197.854766] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 198.676258] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 198.676564] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 198.984620] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 199.599671] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. > [ 200.101338] tbf: tokens overflow; fix limits. I guess it's with a very large (wrt. rate) tbf buffer setting? Btw, of course testing it would be appreciated, but as I wrote earlier we can probably wait with this patch for more reports. Jarek P.