Thanks for your reply. Assuming that "handled well" implies that there are no unreported message drops, then I can focus elsewhere in my debugging.
Gary Duzan IT Architect Senior GT.M Core Team T: +1.484.302.3226 E: gary.du...@fisglobal.com FIS | Advancing the way the world pays, banks and invests™ ________________________________ From: Tung Quang Nguyen <tung.q.ngu...@dektech.com.au> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 9:10 PM To: Duzan, Gary D <gary.du...@fisglobal.com>; tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net <tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: RE: Gacks on, callbacks suppressed messages > When pushing TIPC a bit hard on some of our servers, I've recently had > three of them issue clusters of "Gacks on" messages, with two >of them also issuing "callbacks suppressed" messages. These had kernels from >5.10 to 6.2, so it doesn't seem like an issue with a >particular kernel. Here is a sample dmesg fragment: > >[Wed May 17 17:36:15 2023] __tipc_build_gap_ack_blks: 5 callbacks suppressed >[Wed May 17 17:36:15 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 291! >[Wed May 17 17:36:15 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 307! >[Wed May 17 17:36:15 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 227! >[Wed May 17 17:36:15 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 243! >[Wed May 17 17:36:15 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 259! >[Wed May 17 17:36:16 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 355! >[Wed May 17 17:36:16 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 259! >[Wed May 17 17:36:18 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 323! >[Wed May 17 17:36:18 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 515! >[Wed May 17 17:36:18 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 531! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] __tipc_build_gap_ack_blks: 121 callbacks suppressed >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 147! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 163! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 179! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 355! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 195! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 195! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 211! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4d75f5:eno1: >64, ql: 403! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 227! >[Wed May 17 17:36:21 2023] tipc: Gacks on 1866da4d3dd9:eth0-1866da4db43e:eno1: >64, ql: 243! > >Does this point to a need for tuning, or some bug? No need for tuning, It is not a bug. It indicates that your servers were under high load (a lot of message disorders or message losses). The servers have used the maximum number of Selective ACK blocks (64) to deal with this situation and everything was handled well. The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _______________________________________________ tipc-discussion mailing list tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
