From: Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@gmx.at>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@ginzinger.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: fix loss of frames due to wrong assumption in raw_rcv
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:48:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5587D9DA.6000102@gmx.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5585EC4D.40103@hartkopp.net>
Hello Oliver,
On 2015-06-21 00:42, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>> 514ac99c64b22d83b52dfee3b8becaa69a92bc4a introduces a frame equality
>> check. Since the sk_buff pointer is not sufficient to do this (buffers
>> are reused), the check also compares time stamps.
>> In short: pointer+time stamp was assumed as unique key to a specific
>> frame.
>> The problem with this is, that the time stamp is an optional property
>> and not set per default.
>> In our case (flexcan) the time stamp is always zero, so the equality
>> check is reduced to equality of buffer pointers, resulting in a lot of
>> dropped frames.
>
> The question is why your system did not generate a timestamp at the time of
> skb reception.
>
> Usually when netif_rx(), netif_rx_ni() is invoked the timestamp is set in the
> following reception process.
>
> flexcan.c only uses netif_receive_skb() - but all theses functions set the
> timestamp
>
> net_timestamp_check(netdev_tstamp_prequeue, skb);
>
> depending on netdev_tstamp_prequeue which is configured by
>
> /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_tstamp_prequeue
>
> See the idea of netdev_tstamp_prequeue here:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/net/core/sysctl_net_core.c?id=3b098e2d7c693796cc4dffb07caa249fc0f70771
>
Thank you for the background information!
I've also noticed your patch [PATCH - regression 4.1-rc8] can: fix loss of CAN frames in raw_rcv
> Can you tell me the output of /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_tstamp_prequeue on
> your machine?
/proc/sys/net/core/netdev_tstamp_prequeue is set to 1 (unmodified, default)
I tried to dig a little deeper in timestamping:
1. (net/core/dev.c) I found that static_key_false(&netstamp_needed) is always 0, resulting that the timestamp is never set by net_timestamp_check in netif_receive_skb_internal.
2. (net/core/dev.c) static_key_false(&netstamp_needed) is 0 because net_enable_timestamp is never called.
3. (net/core/sock.c) net_enable_timestamp is never called because SK_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP is not set
4. (net/core/sock.c) SK_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP is not set because neither of SOCK_TIMESTAMP or SOCK_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE is set
5. (net/core/sock.c) SOCK_TIMESTAMP or SOCK_TIMESTAMPING_RX_SOFTWARE is not set because timestamping is an optional feature (according to http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/networking/timestamping.txt?id=b953c0d234bc72e8489d3bf51a276c5c4ec85345) not enabled in my use case (even if netdev_tstamp_prequeue is set to 1)
So the original assumption for the was correct: The correctness of the skb equality check depends on a feature that is not enabled by default (respectively user configurable).
Do you agree with this?
>
> Thanks again for your investigation!
Sure!
Best regards,
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-can" in
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-22 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-20 17:21 [PATCH] can: fix loss of frames due to wrong assumption in raw_rcv Manfred Schlaegl
2015-06-20 22:42 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2015-06-22 9:48 ` Manfred Schlaegl [this message]
2015-06-22 10:24 ` Oliver Hartkopp
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-06-20 16:24 manfred.schlaegl
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=5587D9DA.6000102@gmx.at \
--to=manfred.schlaegl@gmx.at \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred.schlaegl@ginzinger.com \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=wg@grandegger.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).