Bug#565404: linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64: atl1e: TSO is broken
- To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Huang, Xiong" <xiong@qca.qualcomm.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Anders Boström <anders@netinsight.net>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "565404@bugs.debian.org" <565404@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: Bug#565404: linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64: atl1e: TSO is broken
- From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 01:24:17 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20130402232417.GH4924@order.stressinduktion.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, "Huang, Xiong" <xiong@qca.qualcomm.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Anders Boström <anders@netinsight.net>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "565404@bugs.debian.org" <565404@bugs.debian.org>
- Reply-to: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>, 565404@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1364942093.5113.189.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
- References: <CDAFEDABF718A54BABD0DA5476695307475CCFF8@SHEXMB-01.global.atheros.com> <20100126.093439.651115405791675606.anders@netinsight.net> <1364689558.3557.22.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <157393863283F442885425D2C45428564F202477@nasanexd02f.na.qualcomm.com> <1364695805.3557.41.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <[🔎] 157393863283F442885425D2C45428564F20261B@nasanexd02f.na.qualcomm.com> <[🔎] 20130402211524.GE4924@order.stressinduktion.org> <[🔎] 1364940038.5113.187.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <[🔎] 20130402221520.GF4924@order.stressinduktion.org> <[🔎] 1364942093.5113.189.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:34:53PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 00:15 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:00:38PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 23:15 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > >
> > > > The error vanishes as soon as I put a gso size limit of MAX_TX_BUF_LEN
> > > > in the driver. MAX_TX_BUF_LEN seems to be arbitrary set to 0x2000. I
> > > > can even raise it to 0x3000 and don't see any tcp retransmits. Do you
> > > > have an advice on how to size this value (e.g. should we switch to the
> > > > windows values)?
> > >
> > > This looks like an overflow error...
> >
> > Thanks for your input, Eric.
> >
> > I am limited in my time to work on this today but nontheless just tested
> > your patch without any of my changes and count a lot of TcpRetransSegs
> > again. Either there is really some hardware limitation or another
> > overflow.
>
> Another overflow...
>
> Really I don't understand why people use u16 instead of u32.
>
> u16 is slower most of the time, and more prone to overflows.
Just gave your patch a test and I still have a fast increasing tcp
retransmitted segments counter.
Maximum skb length hitting the device is 23234 in my tests (as reported
by ftrace). So I actually think it is a device limitation.
Reply to: