lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2054 tcp_mark_head_lost()
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

>
> (cc netdev)
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:04:39 -0800 (PST) Giangiacomo Mariotti <giangiacomo_mariotti@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is what I got with dmesg :
> >
> > [ 266.978695] WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2054 tcp_mark_head_lost()
> > [ 266.978701] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24.2-my001 #1
> > [ 266.978703]
> > [ 266.978704] Call Trace:
> > [ 266.978706] <IRQ> [<ffffffff80426981>] tcp_ack+0x16d8/0x197f
> > [ 266.978721] [<ffffffff8022e72f>] __wake_up+0x38/0x4e
> > [ 266.978727] [<ffffffff804295ef>] tcp_rcv_established+0xe2/0x8cb
> > [ 266.978732] [<ffffffff8042f56f>] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x30/0x39c
> > [ 266.978738] [<ffffffff80431d29>] tcp_v4_rcv+0x99b/0xa06
> > [ 266.978743] [<ffffffff803f2c95>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x29/0x43
> > [ 266.978749] [<ffffffff80416d21>] ip_local_deliver_finish+0x152/0x212
> > [ 266.978753] [<ffffffff80416bac>] ip_rcv_finish+0x2f8/0x31b
> > [ 266.978758] [<ffffffff803f6c42>] netif_receive_skb+0x3ae/0x3d1
> > [ 266.978763] [<ffffffff8037398f>] rtl8169_rx_interrupt+0x45f/0x53e
> > [ 266.978768] [<ffffffff8037405b>] rtl8169_poll+0x36/0x16a
> > [ 266.978773] [<ffffffff803f8ca7>] net_rx_action+0xb7/0x1f3
> > [ 266.978778] [<ffffffff8023a3a5>] __do_softirq+0x65/0xce
> > [ 266.978782] [<ffffffff8020b0d2>] default_idle+0x0/0x3d
> > [ 266.978786] [<ffffffff8020d09c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
> > [ 266.978789] [<ffffffff8020e4f0>] do_softirq+0x2c/0x7d
> > [ 266.978792] [<ffffffff8023a2fb>] irq_exit+0x3f/0x84
> > [ 266.978794] [<ffffffff8020e729>] do_IRQ+0xb6/0xd5
> > [ 266.978797] [<ffffffff8020b0d2>] default_idle+0x0/0x3d
> > [ 266.978800] [<ffffffff8020c421>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
> > [ 266.978801] <EOI> [<ffffffff8020b0fb>] default_idle+0x29/0x3d
> > [ 266.978809] [<ffffffff8020b1a2>] cpu_idle+0x93/0xbb
> > [ 266.978813] [<ffffffff805cfa4b>] start_kernel+0x2bb/0x2c7
> > [ 266.978818] [<ffffffff805cf123>] _sinittext+0x123/0x12a
> > [ 266.978821]
> >

Are you able to reproduce this in any way? I did in the past a debug patch
that verifies TCP's write queue state by the hard way, ie., by bruteforce
walking often enough to catch inconsistencies early enough to find out
the root cause. I'll try to find that for you after I first go through
the 2.6.24.2's code once again (but I'm pretty busy at this moment, so
it might take a small while)...

> > This though didn't cause any user-visible problem.

Usually it's very insignificant to see them, unless you have them in very
large quantities (it usually triggers for the same occurance in a number
of places where that very same thing is being checked, thus having many
of them in a row once is not what I mean here).

Were there Leak printouts as well a bit after that? If not, this is
triggered with either non-SACK TCP or it is a genuine S+L bits bug.

--
i.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-27 10:33    [W:0.103 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site