On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM Paweł Staszewski wrote:
>
>
>
> W dniu 31.10.2018 o 22:17, Cong Wang pisze:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:05 PM Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> >> Cong, How often does this happen ? can you some how verify if the
> >> problematic packet has extra end padding after the ip
W dniu 30.10.2018 o 15:16, Eric Dumazet pisze:
On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
Indeed this is a bug. I would expect it to produce frequent errors
though as many odd-length
W dniu 31.10.2018 o 22:05, Saeed Mahameed pisze:
On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 10:32 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:16 AM Eric Dumazet
wrote:
On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:05 PM Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>
> Cong, How often does this happen ? can you some how verify if the
> problematic packet has extra end padding after the ip payload ?
For us, we need 10+ hours to get one warning. This is also
why we never capture the packet that causes
On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 10:32 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:16 AM Eric Dumazet
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
> > > >
> > > > On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:50 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2018 10:32 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> > Unlike Pawel's case, we don't use vlan at all, maybe this is why we see
> > it much less frequently than Pawel.
> >
> > Also, it is probably not specific to mlx5, as there is another report
On 10/30/2018 10:32 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> Unlike Pawel's case, we don't use vlan at all, maybe this is why we see
> it much less frequently than Pawel.
>
> Also, it is probably not specific to mlx5, as there is another report which
> is probably a non-mlx5 driver.
Not sure if you provided a
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:16 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
> >
> >
> > W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
> >>
> >> On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed this is a bug. I would expect it to produce
On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
>
>
> W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
>>
>> On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed this is a bug. I would expect it to produce frequent errors
>>> though as many odd-length
>>> packets would trigger it.
W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
Indeed this is a bug. I would expect it to produce frequent errors
though as many odd-length
packets would trigger it. Do you have RXFCS? Regardless, how
frequently do you see the problem?
On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
>
> Indeed this is a bug. I would expect it to produce frequent errors
> though as many odd-length
> packets would trigger it. Do you have RXFCS? Regardless, how
> frequently do you see the problem?
>
Old kernels (before 88078d98d1bb) were
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/2018 07:53 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2018 07:27 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:19 PM Paweł Staszewski
>>> wrote:
Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
[
On 10/29/2018 07:53 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/2018 07:27 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:19 PM Paweł Staszewski
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
>>>
>>> [ 342.190831] vlan1490: hw csum failure
>>> [ 342.190835] CPU: 52
On 10/29/2018 07:27 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:19 PM Paweł Staszewski
> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
>>
>> [ 342.190831] vlan1490: hw csum failure
>> [ 342.190835] CPU: 52 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/52 Not tainted 4.19.0+ #1
>> [
(Adding Eric and Dimitris into Cc)
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:27 PM Cong Wang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:19 PM Paweł Staszewski
> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
> >
> > [ 342.190831] vlan1490: hw csum failure
> > [ 342.190835] CPU: 52 PID: 0 Comm:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:19 PM Paweł Staszewski wrote:
>
> Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
>
> [ 342.190831] vlan1490: hw csum failure
> [ 342.190835] CPU: 52 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/52 Not tainted 4.19.0+ #1
> [ 342.190836] Call Trace:
> [ 342.190839]
> [ 342.190849]
W dniu 30.10.2018 o 01:11, Paweł Staszewski pisze:
Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
[ 342.190831] vlan1490: hw csum failure
[ 342.190835] CPU: 52 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/52 Not tainted 4.19.0+ #1
[ 342.190836] Call Trace:
[ 342.190839]
[ 342.190849] dump_stack+0x46/0x5b
[
Sorry not complete - followed by hw csum:
[ 342.190831] vlan1490: hw csum failure
[ 342.190835] CPU: 52 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/52 Not tainted 4.19.0+ #1
[ 342.190836] Call Trace:
[ 342.190839]
[ 342.190849] dump_stack+0x46/0x5b
[ 342.190856] __skb_checksum_complete+0x9a/0xa0
[
Hi
Just checked in test lab latest kernel and have weird traces:
[ 219.888673] CPU: 52 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/52 Not tainted 4.19.0+ #1
[ 219.888674] Call Trace:
[ 219.888676]
[ 219.888685] dump_stack+0x46/0x5b
[ 219.888691] __skb_checksum_complete+0x9a/0xa0
[ 219.888694]
19 matches
Mail list logo
