[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806021442450.16829@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:53:09 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
cc: johnpol@....mipt.ru, ray-lk@...rabbit.org, mingo@...e.hu,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rjw@...k.pl,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bug] stuck localhost TCP connections, v2.6.26-rc3+
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ilpo J??rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > Before:
> > tcp 65436 0 lo:5000 lo:59980 ESTABLISHED -
>
> This is what happens before accept(2) is called. Ingo, please
> strace the process that owns the listening socket to make sure
> that it is actually calling accept(2). If it ever stops calling
> accept(2) then this is expected behaviour.
Shouldn't that be already visible in the ingo's sysrq-t dump, no? There:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121182099131520&w=2
There are many sys_accepts at least (if I understand that dump at all).
There were some ip_local_outs there as well, which made me wonder if the
totally innocent looking commit 1ac06e0306d0192a7a4d9ea1c9e06d355ce7e7d3
(ipsec: Use the correct ip_local_out function) has something to do with
this (I definately don't understand that part at all).
--
i.
--
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