On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:58:20 +0200
Florian Westphal wrote:
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > I take 2) back. Its wrong to do this, for large NR_CPU values it
> > > would even overflow.
> >
> > Alternatively solution 3:
> > Why do we want to maintain a (4MBytes) memory limit, across all C
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > I take 2) back. Its wrong to do this, for large NR_CPU values it
> > would even overflow.
>
> Alternatively solution 3:
> Why do we want to maintain a (4MBytes) memory limit, across all CPUs?
> Couldn't we just allow each CPU to have a memory limit?
Consider ip
(trimmed CC list a bit)
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:53:15 +0200 Florian Westphal wrote:
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:00:32 +0200
> > Florian Westphal wrote:
> >
> > > liujian (CE) wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I checked our 3.10 kernel, we had backported all
ev@vger.kernel.org;
> Wangkefeng (Kevin); weiyongjun (A)
> Subject: Re: Question about ip_defrag
>
> liujian (CE) wrote:
>
> [ trimming cc list ]
>
> > Now, I have not the real environment.
> > I use iperf generate fragment packets; and I always change NIC rx
> &
liujian (CE) wrote:
[ trimming cc list ]
> Now, I have not the real environment.
> I use iperf generate fragment packets;
> and I always change NIC rx irq's affinity cpu, to make sure frag_mem_limit
> reach to thresh.
> my test machine, CPU num is 384.
Oh well, that explains it.
> > > + if
tel.com; eduma...@google.com;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; Wangkefeng (Kevin); weiyongjun (A)
> Subject: RE: Question about ip_defrag
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> > [mailto:netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org]
> > On Behalf Of
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:00:32 +0200
> Florian Westphal wrote:
>
> > liujian (CE) wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I checked our 3.10 kernel, we had backported all percpu_counter bug fix
> > > in lib/percpu_counter.c and include/linux/percpu_counter.h.
> > > And I che
ogle.com;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; Wangkefeng (Kevin); weiyongjun (A);
> bro...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Question about ip_defrag
>
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:00:32 +0200
> Florian Westphal wrote:
>
> > liujian (CE) wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> >
shf...@linux-ipv6.org; elena.reshet...@intel.com; eduma...@google.com;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; Wangkefeng (Kevin); weiyongjun (A)
> Subject: Re: Question about ip_defrag
>
> liujian (CE) wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I checked our 3.10 kernel, we had backported all percpu_co
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:00:32 +0200
Florian Westphal wrote:
> liujian (CE) wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I checked our 3.10 kernel, we had backported all percpu_counter bug fix in
> > lib/percpu_counter.c and include/linux/percpu_counter.h.
> > And I check 4.13-rc6, also has the issue if NIC's rx cpu n
liujian (CE) wrote:
> Hi
>
> I checked our 3.10 kernel, we had backported all percpu_counter bug fix in
> lib/percpu_counter.c and include/linux/percpu_counter.h.
> And I check 4.13-rc6, also has the issue if NIC's rx cpu num big enough.
>
> > > > > the issue:
> > > > > Ip_defrag fail caused by
iday, August 25, 2017 9:33 AM
> To: 'Jesper Dangaard Brouer'
> Cc: da...@davemloft.net; kuz...@ms2.inr.ac.ru; yoshf...@linux-ipv6.org;
> elena.reshet...@intel.com; eduma...@google.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> Wangkefeng (Kevin); weiyongjun (A)
> Subject: RE: Question about
ev@vger.kernel.org;
> bro...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Question about ip_defrag
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:04:41 + "liujian (CE)"
> wrote:
>
> > >What kernel version have you seen this issue with?
> >
> > 3.10,with some backport.
> >
&g
reshet...@intel.com<mailto:elena.reshet...@intel.com>;eduma...@google.com<mailto:eduma...@google.com>;netdev@vger.kernel.org<mailto:netdev@vger.kernel.org>;bro...@redhat.com<mailto:bro...@redhat.com>
> 主题: Re: Question about ip_defrag
> 时间: 2017-08-24 21:53:17
>
>
> O
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:15:33 + "liujian (CE)" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With below patch we met one issue.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v4.13-rc6&id=6d7b857d541e
>
> the issue:
> Ip_defrag fail caused by frag_mem_limit reached 4M(frags.high_thresh
15 matches
Mail list logo