lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kernel panic in 4.2.3, rb_erase in sch_fq
On 2015-11-02 18:12, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 17:58 +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
>> On 2015-11-02 17:24, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 16:11 +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> Actually seems i was getting this panic for a while (once per week) on
>> >> loaded pppoe server, but just now was able to get full panic message.
>> >> After checking commit logs on sch_fq.c i didnt seen any fixes, so
>> >> probably upgrading to newer kernel wont help?
>> >
>> > I do not think we support sch_fq as a HTB leaf.
>> >
>> > If you want both HTB and sch_fq, you need to setup a bonding device.
>> >
>> > HTB on bond0
>> >
>> > sch_fq on the slaves
>> >
>> > Sure, the kernel should not crash, but HTB+sch_fq on same net device is
>> > certainly not something that will work anyway.
>> Strange, because except ppp, on static devices it works really very
>> well
>> in such scheme. It is the only solution that can throttle incoming
>> bandwidth, when bandwidth is very overbooked - reliably, for my use
>> cases, such as 256k+ flows/2.5Gbps and several different classes of
>> traffic, so using DRR will end up in just not enough classes.
>>
>> On latest kernels i had to patch tc to provide parameter for orphan
>> mask
>> in fq, to increase number for flows for transit traffic.
>> None of other qdiscs able to solve this problem, incoming bandwidth
>> simply flowing 10-20% more than set, but fq is doing magic.
>> The only device that was working with similar efficiency for such
>> cases
>> - proprietary PacketShaper, but is modifying tcp window size, and
>> can't
>> be called transparent, and also has stability issues over 1Gbps.
>
> Ah, I was thinking you needed more like 10Gb traffic ;)
>
> with HTB on bonding, we can use MQ+FQ on the slaves in order to use
> many
> cpus to serve local traffic.
>
> But yes, if you use HTB+FQ for forwarding, I guess the bonding setup is
> not really needed.
Well, here country is very underdeveloped in matters of technology. 10G
interfaces appeared in some ISP only this year.
On the ppp interfaces where crash happening - it is even less bandwidth.
Each user max 1-2Mbps(average usage 128kbps), 4.5k interfaces.
But i have some more heavy setups there, around 9k pppoe users
terminated on single server, (means 9k interfaces), about 2Gbps traffic
passing thru.
If i take non-FOSS solution, i will have to pay for software licenses
$100k+, which is unbearable for local ISP. fq is not critical in this
specific use case, i can use for ppp interfaces fifo or such, but i
guess better to report a but :)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-02 17:41    [W:0.043 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site