Guillaume Pelat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 01:33:29PM +1000, herbert wrote:
> >
> >>So I suppose we should reset cwnd_quota after tcp_transmit_skb?
> >
> > Please try this patch to see if this is really the problem or not.
> >
> > Thanks
Hi,
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 01:33:29PM +1000, herbert wrote:
So I suppose we should reset cwnd_quota after tcp_transmit_skb?
Please try this patch to see if this is really the problem or not.
Thanks,
I just applied your patch, and it seems to work :)
2 hours uptime, and
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 01:33:29PM +1000, herbert wrote:
>
> So I suppose we should reset cwnd_quota after tcp_transmit_skb?
Please try this patch to see if this is really the problem or not.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:33:20AM +, Guillaume Pelat wrote:
>
> I just tried the patch attached. :)
>
> The bug is still here (same symptoms), with a slightly different backtrace :
> [ cut here ]
> kernel BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918!
OK, let's try again :)
I be
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> I've tried to avoid doing that, but I may need to capitulate for now.
> My concern was that the divide that thing does has non-trivial cost.
You're right, this could be expensive.
> Wait... that's not true, multiple SKBs can h
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:36:57 +1000
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:21:53PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > However, if that actually occurs, cwnd_quota would decrement past zero
> > in tcp_write_xmit() and hit negative, something we also BUG() on way
> > b
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 04:21:53PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> However, if that actually occurs, cwnd_quota would decrement past zero
> in tcp_write_xmit() and hit negative, something we also BUG() on way
> before the next tcp_tso_should_defer() call.
Not necessarily. We could hit tso_fragm
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:03:14 +1000
> I suspect that the MSS stored in the skb disagrees with the
> mss_now. So when tso_fragment chops it up we end up with a TSO count
> that's greater than what we started with.
Oh yes, that would bolix things up. If we ge
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:48:21PM +, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> that is the only exception to the "(tp->snd_cwnd <= in_flight)"
> rule.
I agree. I suspect that the MSS stored in the skb disagrees with the
mss_now. So when tso_fragment chops it up we end up with a TSO count
that's greater t
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:12:51 -0700
> I've been trying to upgrade kernel from 2.6.12.3 to 2.6.13-rc4 on a
> rather loaded http server, but i'm currently having a kernel panic a few
> minutes only after booting. The bug was reproductible (the crash
> hap
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:02:01 +0200
From: Guillaume Pelat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 2.6.13-rc4 - kernel panic - BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918
Hi,
I've been trying to upgrade kernel from 2.6.12.
11 matches
Mail list logo
