Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756066Ab0ARV0J (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:26:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755153Ab0ARV0A (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:26:00 -0500 Received: from mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.4.199]:54552 "EHLO mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754863Ab0ARVZ7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:25:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:24:52 -0500 From: Michael Breuer Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_packet: Don't use skb after dev_queue_xmit() In-reply-to: <20100118130038.77a3adfb@nehalam> To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Jarek Poplawski , David Miller , akpm@linux-foundation.org, flyboy@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <4B54D1A4.2020609@majjas.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4B4E2F89.2050606@majjas.com> <20100113210908.GA3065@del.dom.local> <4B4E3834.3000609@majjas.com> <4B533A46.9050600@majjas.com> <20100117221746.GA3161@del.dom.local> <4B53906B.2020608@majjas.com> <20100117230531.GC3161@del.dom.local> <4B539A0A.2000504@majjas.com> <20100118073018.GA6270@ff.dom.local> <4B548C6B.10607@majjas.com> <20100118204658.GC3157@del.dom.local> <4B54CB0D.5070604@majjas.com> <20100118130038.77a3adfb@nehalam> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1624 Lines: 34 On 1/18/2010 4:00 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:56:45 -0500 > Michael Breuer wrote: > > >>>> 2. The dropped tx packet (DHCP) is a bit harder to recreate, but it >>>> still happens. >>>> >>>> > You might want to use tc filter rule to set priority of DHCP packets > higher. This would cause them to be in a separate queue and eliminate > the problem. > > Ok - for fun, tried that - no change. Not sure I see why this might be a factor. The packet loss happens when TX load is low and RX high. Also, packets only being dropped if traversing a router vs.to the router itself. Keep in mind that pings to the router did not lose packets, pings through the router lost packets. The router was not under load (traffic is being generated from a device connected via the 1Gb switch, not the wifi router), and tcpdump on the router input port shows the pings to the router, but not the ones through the router. One added note, when I just tried this, the test data ended while the packet loss was occurring. The DHCPOFFER packet loss did not clear until about a minute after the throughput abated. I really think something is getting hosed, and I'd but some weird interaction with the arp logic high on the list of suspects. Not sure what else would be a factor when looking at the extra hop on the same subnet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/