From: Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@gmail.com>
To: Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: r8169: IO_PAGE_FAULT & netdev watchdog
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:42:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201206021542.28869.plr.vincent@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120602105645.GA28769@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com>
Le samedi 02 juin 2012 12:56:45, vous avez écrit :
> And partly because the patch I sent included its content in the commit
> message as well. :o/
I noticed the repetition after trying to apply on 3.4, and dropped one. And
only then realised it was really already applied.
> If the inlined patch makes a difference, you should see it with 3.4.
It made a difference, when testing with netcat: without any change over
vanilla 3.3.7, network trafic drops to 0 in a matter of seconds (up to around
10s). With it, it stayed stable for 10 minutes, until I killed nc.
I reproduced this with 3.4 as well (no patch = bug, patch = no problem).
In both version without patch, I got the watchdog warning 10 minutes after
traffic drop - though without the IO_PAGE_FAULT message.
I spent quite some time testing with nc in UDP mode first, and couldn't
reproduce the issue (then I switched to TCP as said above). Does that make any
sense ?
I also noticed the significant lag at bootup when eth0 is brought up is much
reduced on patched kernel. Does that makes sense ?
FWIW, the commands I used were based on:
nc -l -p 5555 < /dev/zero > /dev/null
With/without -u flag, and of course client-side equivalent command so the
connection was used full-duplex at maximum speed: 450Mb/s in TCP, 800+Mb/s in
UDP, each way. UDP was limited by CPU on one side (~450Mb/s upload from
that box, 800Mb/s download, 100% cpu on it).
Values are as reported by nload & htop.
All tests were done in runlevel 2, with rsyslog manually started with its init
script.
> My life is a bit easier when you work somewhere in the main branch
> (or in davem's -next but it is not relevant for regression fixes).
I'm not sure: does 3.4 tarball from kernel.org qualify as "main branch" ?
Otherwise, which git repos & branch should I use ?
Regards,
--
Vincent Pelletier
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-02 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-31 21:31 r8169: IO_PAGE_FAULT & netdev watchdog Vincent Pelletier
2012-06-01 12:59 ` Francois Romieu
2012-06-01 19:20 ` Vincent Pelletier
2012-06-01 20:13 ` Francois Romieu
2012-06-02 9:08 ` Vincent Pelletier
2012-06-02 10:56 ` Francois Romieu
2012-06-02 13:42 ` Vincent Pelletier [this message]
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=201206021542.28869.plr.vincent@gmail.com \
--to=plr.vincent@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=romieu@fr.zoreil.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).