Hi,
On 30/10/14 20:39, K. Macy wrote:
>> I also suspect there are further problems with buf_ring. A full wrap
>> around of the atomically swapped value is possible. I.e. the code thinks
>> it just atomically updated a head/tail index when in fact a full wrap
>> around occurred leading to undefi
>
> I also suspect there are further problems with buf_ring. A full wrap
> around of the atomically swapped value is possible. I.e. the code thinks
> it just atomically updated a head/tail index when in fact a full wrap
> around occurred leading to undefined land. A relatively simple way to
> avoi
> Hi Oleg and Ryan,
>
> We have run into the spurious drop issue too. I could not make sense of
> seeing a single drop at a time every few seconds i.e. if a queue of 4k
> element fills, likely more than one packet is going to be dropped once the
> queue full condition is reached. So we investigated
On 12/26/13, 6:54 PM, "Oleg Bulyzhin" wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:04:57AM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote:
>> I am seeing spurious output packet drops that appear to be due to
>> insufficient memory barriers in buf_ring. I believe that this is the
>> scenario that I am seeing:
>>
>> 1) The buf
