[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [bug, bisected] pfifo_fast causes packet reordering
On 03/13/2018 11:35 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Jakob Unterwurzacher
> <> wrote:
>> During stress-testing our "ucan" USB/CAN adapter SocketCAN driver on Linux
>> v4.16-rc4-383-ged58d66f60b3 we observed that a small fraction of packets are
>> delivered out-of-order.

Is the stress-testing tool available somewhere? What type of packets
are being sent?

>> We have tracked the problem down to the driver interface level, and it seems
>> that the driver's net_device_ops.ndo_start_xmit() function gets the packets
>> handed over in the wrong order.
>> This behavior was not observed on Linux v4.15 and I have bisected the
>> problem down to this patch:
>>> commit c5ad119fb6c09b0297446be05bd66602fa564758
>>> Author: John Fastabend <>
>>> Date: Thu Dec 7 09:58:19 2017 -0800
>>> net: sched: pfifo_fast use skb_array
>>> This converts the pfifo_fast qdisc to use the skb_array data structure
>>> and set the lockless qdisc bit. pfifo_fast is the first qdisc to
>>> support
>>> the lockless bit that can be a child of a qdisc requiring locking. So
>>> we add logic to clear the lock bit on initialization in these cases
>>> when
>>> the qdisc graft operation occurs.
>>> This also removes the logic used to pick the next band to dequeue from
>>> and instead just checks a per priority array for packets from top
>>> priority
>>> to lowest. This might need to be a bit more clever but seems to work
>>> for now.
>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <>
>>> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <>
>> The patch does not revert cleanly, but moving to one commit earlier makes
>> the problem go away.
>> Selecting the "fq" scheduler instead of "pfifo_fast" makes the problem go
>> away as well.

Is this a single queue device or a multiqueue device? Running
'tc -s qdisc show dev foo' would help some.

> I am of course, a fan of obsoleting pfifo_fast. There's no good reason
> for it anymore.
>> Is this an unintended side-effect of the patch or is there something the
>> driver has to do to request in-order delivery?
If we introduced a OOO edge case somewhere that was not
intended so I'll take a look into it. But, if you can provide
a bit more details on how stress testing is done to cause the
issue that would help.


>> Thanks,
>> Jakob

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 05:04    [W:0.464 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site