Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754576AbcKYNOV (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2016 08:14:21 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46256 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753324AbcKYNON (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2016 08:14:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 13:14:03 +0000 From: Brian Starkey To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Alexander Potapenko , Steven Rostedt , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: Regression: Failed boots bisected to 4cd13c21b207 "softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job" Message-ID: <20161125131403.GA2813@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20161116210139.GB21156@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20161117164200.GA24653@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20161122103351.GA25080@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20161122152733.GH25080@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20161123182115.GA28733@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1164 Lines: 45 Hi, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:03:28PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Brian Starkey wrote: > >> This patch didn't help. >> >> I did get some new traces though - I've attached the diff for the >> trace_printks I added. >> >> Before 4cd13c21b207: >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8siaK6ZjvEwcEtOeFQzTmY0Nnc >> After 4cd13c21b207: >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8siaK6ZjvEwZnQ4MVg1d3d1Tm8 >> >> It looks like the difference is that after 4cd13c21b207 the RX softirq >> isn't running, and RX interrupts don't call softirq_raise anymore - >> presumably because there's one pending, but I didn't have time to >> track that down to a code-path. >> >> Cheers, >> -Brian >> > >Hi Brian > >Looks like netif_rx() drops the incoming packets then ? > >Maybe netif_running() is not happy :( > >Could you trace netif_rx() return value (NET_RX_SUCCESS or NET_RX_DROP) Some packets are dropped, but not very many: $ grep NET_RX_SUCCESS trace_netif_rx.txt | wc -l 14399 $ grep NET_RX_DROP trace_netif_rx.txt | wc -l 22 Without the ksoftirqd change there were zero NET_RX_DROPs. -Brian > >Thanks !