[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160123080741.GB2193@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 09:07:41 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] net/core: don't increment rx_dropped on inactive
slaves
Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:11:22PM CET, jarod@...hat.com wrote:
>The network core tries to keep track of dropped packets, but some packets
>you wouldn't really call dropped, so much as intentionally ignored, under
>certain circumstances. One such case is that of bonding and team device
>slaves that are currently inactive. Their respective rx_handler functions
>return RX_HANDLER_EXACT (the only places in the kernel that return that),
>which ends up tracking into the network core's __netif_receive_skb_core()
>function's drop path, with no pt_prev set. On a noisy network, this can
>result in a very rapidly incrementing rx_dropped counter, not only on the
>inactive slave(s), but also on the master device, such as the following:
>
>Inter-| Receive | Transmit
> face |bytes packets errs drop fifo frame compressed multicast|bytes packets errs drop fifo colls carrier compressed
> p7p1: 14783346 140430 0 140428 0 0 0 2040 680 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
> p7p2: 14805198 140648 0 0 0 0 0 2034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> bond0: 53365248 532798 0 421160 0 0 0 115151 2040 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
> lo: 5420 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 5420 54 0 0 0 0 0 0
> p5p1: 19292195 196197 0 140368 0 0 0 56564 680 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
> p5p2: 19289707 196171 0 140364 0 0 0 56547 680 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
> em3: 20996626 158214 0 0 0 0 0 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> em2: 14065122 138462 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> em1: 14063162 138440 0 0 0 0 0 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> em4: 21050830 158729 0 0 0 0 0 385 71662 469 0 0 0 0 0 0
> ib0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>
>In this scenario, p5p1, p5p2 and p7p1 are all inactive slaves in an
>active-backup bond0, and you can see that all three have high drop counts,
>with the master bond0 showing a tally of all three.
>
>I know that this was previously discussed some here:
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg226341.html
>
>It seems additional counters never came to fruition, but honestly, for
>this particular case, I'm not even sure they're warranted, I'd be inclined
>to say just silently drop these packets without incrementing a counter. At
>least, that's probably what would make someone who has complained loudly
>about this issue happy, as they have monitoring tools that are squaking
>loudly at any increments to rx_dropped.
>
>CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
>CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>CC: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>CC: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
>CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
>CC: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
>CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
I think this should be considered as a bug and go to -net.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists