linux-kernel - Re: NET_SCHED cbq dropping too many packets on a bonding interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <482C7D8F.3040401@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2008 20:14:39 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	Kingsley Foreman <kingsley@...ernode.com.au>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NET_SCHED cbq dropping too many packets on a bonding interface

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 06:09:36PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Kingsley Foreman wrote:
>>> i just rolled back the kernel to 2.6.24 and im seeing the same thing,
>>>
>>> I was using 2.6.22 before and didn't see the problem, txqueuelen on the 
>>> bond0 interface is 0 (the default)
>> That might explain things, although it shouldn't have worked before
>> either.
>>
>> CBQ creates default pfifo qdiscs for its leaves, these use a limit
>> of txqueuelen or 1 if it is zero. So even small bursts will cause
>> drops. Do things improve if you set txqueuelen to a larger value
>> *before* configuring the qdiscs?
> 
> Kingsley wrote to me that even after changing txqueuelen to 1000 the
> "dropped" number didn't change much. A debugging patch with printks
> around all "sch->qstats.dropps++" showed only the end of cbq_enqueue().


Thats where packets dropped by default pfifo would be accounted.
Did you change txqueuelen before or after setting up the qdiscs?

> I've asked to check tomorrow "pfifo limit 1000" for these drops too.

That will clear it up.

>> Another thing is that CBQ on bond will probably not work properly
>> at all, it needs a real device since it measures the timing between
>> dequeue events for idle time estimation. On software devices this
>> doesn't work.
> 
> Right, but these drops without any sign of overactions or overlimits
> seem to show it's not about shaping (or it's not counted/documented
> enough).

Yes, these drops are probably unrelated, just thought I mention it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/