netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Assorted mvneta fixes

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: <20140114072453.GC27536@1wt.eu>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:24:53 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Assorted mvneta fixes

Hi Arnaud,

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:36:05PM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> writes:
> 
> >> Funny enough, I spent some time this week-end trying to find the root
> >> cause of some kernel freezes and panics appearing randomly after some GB
> >> read on a ReadyNAS 102 configured as a NFS server. 
> >> 
> >> I tested your fixes and performance series together on top of current
> >> 3.13.0-rc7 and I am now unable to reproduce the freeze and panics after
> >> having read more than the 300GB of traffic from the NAS: following
> >> bandwith with a bwm-ng shows the rate is also far more stable than w/
> >> previous driver logic (55MB/sec). So, FWIW:
> >> 
> >> Tested-by: Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>
> >
> > Thanks for this.
> >
> > BTW, the "performance" series is not supposed to fix anything, 
> 
> I was lazy and wanted to give the whole set a try in a single pass.
> 
> 
> > and still it seems difficult to me to find what patch might have fixed
> > your problem. Maybe the timer used in place of an IRQ has an even
> > worse effect than what we could imagine ?
> 
> I guess so.
> 
> 
> >> Willy, I can extend the test to RN2120 if you think it is useful to also
> >> do additional tests on a dual-core armada XP.
> >
> > It's up to you. These patches have run extensively on my Mirabox (Armada370),
> > OpenBlocks AX3 (ArmadaXP dual core) and the XP-GP board (ArmadaXP quad core),
> > and fixed the stability issues and performance issues I was facing there. But
> > you may be interested in testing them with your workloads (none of my boxes
> > is used as an NFS server, NAS or whatever, they mainly see HTTP and very small
> > packets used in stress tests).
> 
> Well, I spent the evening on my RN104 (Aramda370 w/ 2 GbE ifaces) and my
> RN2120 (Dual core ArmadaXP w/ 2GbE ifaces) using one as a router and
> serving NFS traffic from the other (and then changing roles). I passed
> hundreds of GB of TCP/NFS traffic and did not see any issue.
> 
> Additionally, FWIW, testing both using netperf show they easily support
> routing traffic w/ line rate perf.
> 
> Regarding the patches, the problem they solve impacts all Armada boards
> (370 and XP) which are used for network tasks. I think it would be nice
> to have those backported to stable. I can commit to do the tests of the
> backports both on XP and 370 hardware down to 3.12 or 3.11 kernel if it
> can help. 

I think so. I've been successfully using them from 3.10 and upwards.

Cheers,
Willy

--
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