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
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists