Jorge Nerin wrote:
>
> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, I have tried it with 2.4.0-test10, both SMP and non-SMP, and the
> > > result is a little confusing.
> > >
> > > Under SMP a ping -s 50000 -f other_host takes down the network access
> > > with no messages (ne2k-pci), and no possibility of being restored
> > > without a reboot.
> > >
> > > Under UP the same command works ok, but after a while the dots stop for
> > > 30sec, then ping prints an 'E' and the dots continue. strace revealed
> > > this:
> >
> > Another suggestion - if you have your heart set on using ping
> > as your network stress tool, you may want to try using multiple
> > instances of MTU sized pings versus a single "ping -s 50000".
> > In this way you aren't involving any IP frag code and its associated
> > bean counting - giving us one less factor to consider.
> >
> > Oh, and since you get a silent failure, maybe you would be interested
> > in testing this patch I was (originally) saving for 2.5.x. -- It adds
> > watchdog transmit timeout functionality to 8390.c (which is used by
> > the ne2k-pci driver). Last time I updated it was a couple of months
> > ago, but nothing has changed since then.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
>
> Tested with ping -f -s 1400 (1400 in order not to reach 1500)
> It took about half an hour and more than one million packets, but I
> finally took the net down, with 12 concurrent pings.
>
> To eliminate factors I have deleted all the NAT rules wich gave messages
> about dropped packets, and unloaded all the iptables modules.
>
> I have to make the test without the test check in sock_wait_for_wmem:
> if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE))
> == 0)
> BUG();
>
> Because as I said in a previous msg it gave me BUG()s very early in the
> tests, and I still had network access.
>
> If someone has a better sugestion as a nic stress tool I can try it, but
> now I only have two ways of reaching this limits, ping -f of big
> packets, and sometimes (only 4 or 5) during a copy of a large file over
> NFS, but it's not a easy way to cause this.
>
> --
> Jorge Nerin
> <comandante@zaralinux.com>
Well, now it's kernel 2.4.0-test11-pre1 + 8390nmi, and the same
conditions, about 8 pings concurrent, and this time it took only 202k
packets to take the ne2k-pci down, but this time the watchdog says:
Nov 9 16:00:52 quartz kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
Nov 9 16:00:52 quartz kernel: eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt?
TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=1792.
Nov 9 16:00:54 quartz kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
Nov 9 16:00:54 quartz kernel: eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt?
TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=117.
Nov 9 16:00:56 quartz kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
Nov 9 16:00:56 quartz kernel: eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt?
TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=117.
Nov 9 16:00:58 quartz kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
Nov 9 16:00:58 quartz kernel: eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt?
TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=117.
Nov 9 16:01:00 quartz kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
Nov 9 16:01:00 quartz kernel: eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt?
TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=117.
Nov 9 16:01:02 quartz kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
Nov 9 16:01:02 quartz kernel: eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt?
TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=117.
And never comes alive again.
-- Jorge Nerin <comandante@zaralinux.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:15 EST