[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091217131708.GC8654@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:17:09 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, mst@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Regression in linux 2.6.32 virtio_net seen with
vhost-net
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 05:26:37PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Sridhar is seeing 280K requeue's, and that probably implies device
> was stopped and wrongly restarted immediately. So the next xmit in
> the kernel found the txq is not stopped and called the xmit handler,
> get a BUSY, requeue, and so on. That would also explain why his BW
> drops so much - all false starts (besides 19% of all skbs being
> requeued). I assume that each time when we check:
>
> if (!netif_tx_queue_stopped(txq) && !netif_tx_queue_frozen(txq))
> ret = dev_hard_start_xmit(skb, dev, txq);
> it passes the check and dev_hard_start_xmit is called wrongly.
>
> #Requeues: 283575
> #total skbs: 1469482
> Percentage requeued: 19.29%
I haven't followed this thread, so I'm not sure what are you looking
for, but can't these requeues/drops mean some hardware limits were
reached? I wonder why there are compared linux-2.6.32 vs. 2.6.31.6
with different test conditions (avg. packet sizes: 16800 vs. 64400)?
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists