From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155 inet_sock_destruct+0x122/0x13a() Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:16:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4A84589B.6020002@wpkg.org> References: <4A76A009.40605@wpkg.org> <1249346282.6479.5.camel@merlyn> <20090803.212007.253928711.davem@davemloft.net> <4A77D2BA.3040304@gmail.com> <4A831F69.1080703@hp.com> <1250176905.7289.7.camel@Maple> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Vlad Yasevich , Eric Dumazet , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: John Dykstra Return-path: Received: from mx03.syneticon.net ([78.111.66.105]:41448 "EHLO mx03.syneticon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751439AbZHMSRe (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:17:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1250176905.7289.7.camel@Maple> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: John Dykstra wrote: > 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? There was quite a bit of NFS, but over TCP. The other type of traffic was iSCSI (made with tgt as a target). -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org