On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:08 PM Neal Cardwell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:55 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:02 AM Neal Cardwell wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing
>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 9:55 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:02 AM Neal Cardwell wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > >
> > > > I'm still trying
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:02 AM Neal Cardwell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
> > > be better as
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:02 PM Neal Cardwell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
> > > be better as
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
> > be better as following:
> > 1) discard the tcp_internal_pacing() function.
> > 2) remove
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:44 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
> > be better as following:
> > 1) discard the tcp_internal_pacing() function.
> > 2) remove
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:05 PM Jason Xing wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
> be better as following:
> 1) discard the tcp_internal_pacing() function.
> 2) remove where the tcp_internal_pacing() is called in the
> __tcp_transmit_skb()
Hi Eric,
I'm still trying to understand what you're saying before. Would this
be better as following:
1) discard the tcp_internal_pacing() function.
2) remove where the tcp_internal_pacing() is called in the
__tcp_transmit_skb() function.
If we do so, we could avoid 'too late to give up pacing'.
Thanks for reminding me.
I will test the cases through using sch_fq.
Jason
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:44 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:42 PM Jason Xing wrote:
> >
> > I agree with you. The upstream has already dropped and optimized this
> > part (commit 864e5c090749), so
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:42 PM Jason Xing wrote:
>
> I agree with you. The upstream has already dropped and optimized this
> part (commit 864e5c090749), so it would not happen like that. However
> the old kernels like LTS still have the problem which causes
> large-scale crashes on our thousands
I agree with you. The upstream has already dropped and optimized this
part (commit 864e5c090749), so it would not happen like that. However
the old kernels like LTS still have the problem which causes
large-scale crashes on our thousands of machines after running for a
long while. I will send the
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:53 PM Jason Xing wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I'm sorry that I didn't write enough clearly. We're running the
> pristine 4.19.125 linux kernel (the latest LTS version) and have been
> haunted by such an issue. This patch is high-important, I think. So
> I'm going to resend
From: Jason Xing
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:53:10 +0800
> I'm sorry that I didn't write enough clearly. We're running the
> pristine 4.19.125 linux kernel (the latest LTS version) and have been
> haunted by such an issue. This patch is high-important, I think. So
> I'm going to resend this email
Hi Eric,
I'm sorry that I didn't write enough clearly. We're running the
pristine 4.19.125 linux kernel (the latest LTS version) and have been
haunted by such an issue. This patch is high-important, I think. So
I'm going to resend this email with the [patch 4.19] on the headline
and cc Greg.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:05 AM wrote:
>
> From: Jason Xing
>
> TCP socks cannot be released because of the sock_hold() increasing the
> sk_refcnt in the manner of tcp_internal_pacing() when RTO happens.
> Therefore, this situation could increase the slab memory and then trigger
> the OOM if the
From: Jason Xing
TCP socks cannot be released because of the sock_hold() increasing the
sk_refcnt in the manner of tcp_internal_pacing() when RTO happens.
Therefore, this situation could increase the slab memory and then trigger
the OOM if the machine has beening running for a long time. This
16 matches
Mail list logo
