Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 03 Nov 2000 18:45:14 +0100 | From | Jorge Nerin <> | Subject | Re: [patch] NE2000 |
| |
Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > Jorge Nerin wrote: > > > > > Ok, I reported it several times, but it gets ignored. I have a Realtek > > 8029 (ne2k-pci), and with both drivers ne and ne2k-pci I can easily get > > it stuck by doing a ping -f to a host in the local net, and sometimes it > > happens doing copies to/from nfs shared resources. > > > > rmmod & insmod don't cure the problem, it seems that no interrupts are > > delivered from the card, and there are no log messages, so a reboot is > > needed to restore net access. > > > > System is dual 2x200mmx 96Mb ide discs no interrupts shared, and as far > > as I can remember all kernel from 2.2.x, 2.3.x up to 2.4.0-testx exhibit > > this problem. > > Any messages from the driver whatsoever? Does running a non-SMP > kernel make the problem go away? > > Paul. >
Well, I have tried it with 2.4.0-test10, both SMP and non-SMP, and the result is a little confusing.
Under SMP a ping -s 50000 -f other_host takes down the network access with no messages (ne2k-pci), and no possibility of being restored without a reboot.
Under UP the same command works ok, but after a while the dots stop for 30sec, then ping prints an 'E' and the dots continue. strace revealed this:
sendmsg(4, {msg_name(16)={sin_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(0), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.1.20")}}, msg_iov(1)=[{"\10\0\305~|\23\231\0\v\317\2:\177\236\r\0\10\t\n\v\f\r"..., 50008}], msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0x800) = 50008 <30.016855>
ping has been waiting for sendmsg to end for 30 seconds! I don't know if this could be caused by filling the network buffers, and then waiting a while while the nic sends it out. As the packet size increases (the -s option) the stops are more frequent, there is still activity on the network, but I don't know if they are my packets or the replies.
When ping is stopped it's stuck in sock_wait_for_wmem, and when it's running it's (usually) in wait_for_packet.
So I think that it could be a little window near sock_wait_for_wmem that could be SMP insecure wich is affecting me.
The code of sock_wait_for_wmem in 2.4.0-test10 is this:
static long sock_wait_for_wmem(struct sock * sk, long timeo) { DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
clear_bit(SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &sk->socket->flags); add_wait_queue(sk->sleep, &wait); for (;;) { if (signal_pending(current)) break; set_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &sk->socket->flags); set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); if (atomic_read(&sk->wmem_alloc) < sk->sndbuf) break; if (sk->shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) break; if (sk->err) break; timeo = schedule_timeout(timeo); } __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); remove_wait_queue(sk->sleep, &wait); return timeo; }
Does someone see something SMP insecure? Perhaps I'm totally wrong, this could also be somewhere in the interrupt handling, don't know.
-- Jorge Nerin <comandante@zaralinux.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |