lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv 2] tcp: properly initialize tcp memory limits part 2 (fix nfs regression)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 20:27:17 -0300
Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> wrote:

> On 03/03/2012 11:43 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 11:16:41 -0300
> > Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/02/2012 02:50 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> >>>>>> The change looks like a typo (division flipped to multiplication):
> >>>>>>> limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() / 8;
> >>>>>>> limit = nr_free_buffer_pages()<< (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi, thanks for the reporting. It's not a typo. It was previously:
> >>>>> sysctl_tcp_mem[1]<< (PAGE_SHIFT - 7). Looks like we need to do the
> >>>>> limit check before shift the value. Please try the following patch, thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> Still does not help. I test it by checking sha1sum of a large file over NFS
> >>>> (small files seem to work simetimes):
> >>>>
> >>>> $ strace sha1sum /gentoo/distfiles/gcc-4.6.2.tar.bz2
> >>>> ...
> >>>> open("/gentoo/distfiles/gcc-4.6.2.tar.bz2", O_RDONLY
> >>>> <HUNG>
> >>>> After a certain timeout dmesg gets odd spam:
> >>>> [ 314.848094] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.848134] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.848145] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.957047] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.957066] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.957075] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.957085] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.957100] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.958023] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.958035] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.958044] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>> [ 314.958054] nfs: server vmhost not responding, still trying
> >>>>
> >>>> looks like bogus messages. Might be relevant to mishandled timings
> >>>> somewhere else or a bug in nfs code.
> >>>
> >>> And after 120 seconds hung tasks shows it might be an OOM issue
> >>> Likely caused by patch, as it's a 2GB RAM +4GB swap amd64 box
> >>> not running anything heavy:
> >>
> >> That is a bit weird.
> >>
> >> First because with Jason's patch, we should end up with the very same
> >> calculation, at the same exact order, as it was in older kernels.
> >> Second, because by shifting<< 10, you should be ending up with very
> >> small numbers, effectively having tcp_rmem[1] == tcp_rmem[2], and the
> >> same for wmem.
> >>
> >> Can you share which numbers you end up with at
> >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_{r,w}mem ?
> >>
> >
> > Sure:
> >
> > $ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_{r,w}mem
> > 4096 87380 1999072
> > 4096 16384 1999072
> >
> Sergei,
>
> Sorry for not being clearer. I was expecting you'd post those values
> both in the scenario in which you see the bug, and in the scenario you
> don't.

Ah, I see. Sorry. Patches are on top of v3.3-rc5-166-g1f033c1. Buggy one:
> - limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() << (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
> - limit = max(limit, 128UL);
> + limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() / 8;
> + limit = max(limit, 128UL) << (PAGE_SHIFT - 7);
> max_share = min(4UL*1024*1024, limit);
> + printk(KERN_INFO "TCP: max_share=%u\n", max_share);
$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_{r,w}mem
4096 87380 1999072
4096 16384 1999072

Working one:
> - limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() << (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
> + limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
> limit = max(limit, 128UL);
> max_share = min(4UL*1024*1024, limit);
> + printk(KERN_INFO "TCP: max_share=%u\n", max_share);
$ cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_{r,w}mem
4096 87380 124942
4096 16384 124942

> > Nothing special with NFS nere, so I guess it uses UDP.
> > TCP works fine on machine (I do everything via SSH).
>
> Can you confirm that? If you're using nfs through udp, it makes
> even less sense that the default values of tcp sock mem will harm
> you. So it might be a bug somewhere else...

Rechecked with tcpdump. It uses TCP.

--

Sergei
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-04 10:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans