Sorry, I forgot a subject last time. Maybe this will get
a response instead.
I'm seeing these in my logcheck output:
---
Mar 27 16:16:45 king kernel: KERNEL: assertion (!sk->sk_forward_alloc) failed at net/core/stream.c (283)
Mar 27 16:16:45 king kernel: KERNEL: assertion (!sk->sk_forward_alloc) failed at net/ipv4/af_inet.c (150)
---
I also saw this with 2.6.14.5. I found references on LKML about
this happening in 2.6.9 with regards to TSO and lowering
tcp_tso_win_divisor. I'm not lowering any values via sysctl
(that I'm aware of anyway), so I'm not sure if I should worry
about this.
Just a heads up in case this is a real problem.
--
Mark Nipper e-contacts:
832 Tanglewood Drive [email protected]
Bryan, Texas 77802-4013 http://nipsy.bitgnome.net/
(979)575-3193 AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL++++$ P--->+++ L+++$ !E---
W++(--) N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--)
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X R tv b+++@ DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
---begin random quote of the moment---
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
----end random quote of the moment----
From: Mark Nipper <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:08:16 -0600
> Sorry, I forgot a subject last time. Maybe this will get
> a response instead.
>
> I'm seeing these in my logcheck output:
> ---
> Mar 27 16:16:45 king kernel: KERNEL: assertion (!sk->sk_forward_alloc) failed at net/core/stream.c (283)
> Mar 27 16:16:45 king kernel: KERNEL: assertion (!sk->sk_forward_alloc) failed at net/ipv4/af_inet.c (150)
> ---
>
> I also saw this with 2.6.14.5. I found references on LKML about
> this happening in 2.6.9 with regards to TSO and lowering
> tcp_tso_win_divisor. I'm not lowering any values via sysctl
> (that I'm aware of anyway), so I'm not sure if I should worry
> about this.
>
> Just a heads up in case this is a real problem.
It's being discussed at the proper place, [email protected].
You have an e1000 card right? A temporary workaround is to disable
TSO on that interface.
On 28 Mar 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
> It's being discussed at the proper place, [email protected].
>
> You have an e1000 card right? A temporary workaround is to disable
> TSO on that interface.
Okay. Sorry for the duplicate. I just wasn't sure if
anyone saw the first one.
Yes, it is an e1000. I disabled TSO via ethtool. Do I
need to reboot or anything and do this right away to avoid
problems or will the few assertions I've seen thus far not cause
any badness in the kernel?
--
Mark Nipper e-contacts:
832 Tanglewood Drive [email protected]
Bryan, Texas 77802-4013 http://nipsy.bitgnome.net/
(979)575-3193 AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL++++$ P--->+++ L+++$ !E---
W++(--) N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--)
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X R tv b+++@ DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
---begin random quote of the moment---
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania_, 1759
----end random quote of the moment----
From: Mark Nipper <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:50:33 -0600
> Yes, it is an e1000. I disabled TSO via ethtool. Do I
> need to reboot or anything and do this right away to avoid
> problems or will the few assertions I've seen thus far not cause
> any badness in the kernel?
It should take effect right away, no need to reboot.