[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160322081816.GH25010@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:18:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@...il.com>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mchehab@...radead.org, markus@...ppelsdorf.de, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] packet loss with PROVE_LOCKING, bisected to EDAC fix
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 06:31:54AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:42:09PM +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was testing something on an old server (Dell T105 opteron) and noticed
> > packet loss after updating the kernel from 3.10 to 4.5. The test was:
> >
> > On Dell run: iperf -s
> > On another system: iperf3 -c dell -u -b 20M -l 1k -t 1000
> >
> > This sends a 20mbit UDP stream to the Dell. It works fine normally (0%
> > packet loss), but when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is enabled there is high
> > (35%) packet loss. (DEBUG_LOCKDEP also seems to cause packet loss)
> >
> > The packet loss bisected back to:
> >
> > commit 88d84ac97378c2f1d5fec9af1e8b7d9a662d6b00
> > Author: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> > Date: Fri Jul 19 12:28:25 2013 +0200
> >
> > EDAC: Fix lockdep splat
>
> Hmm, how would that cause a packet loss?!
The previous bug would disable lockdep and thereby avoid much of the
normal overhead associated with lockdep. I suspect the packet loss is a
result of increased overhead.
IOW, everything works as expected.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists