netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

      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).