* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

quoted text
> > just to clarify the bug pattern: the box was still accessible after 
> > the warning. So this is a far less serious problem and i'd suggest 
> > we open up a separate regression entry for it and consider the 
> > hung-TCP problem closed. (i havent seen the hang in the last week, 
> > with either version of the tcp-accept reverts)
> 
> It is a warning that just means the transmitted on the network device 
> stalled for an unusually long period of time.  Is your subnet flooded 
> when these warnings occur?  Is the remove side system wedged or at a 
> very high load when the message triggers?

yes, both the network and the testbox is at relatively high load, it's a 
distcc kernel build over the network. Thousands of such iterations were 
done successfully without this warning ever triggering - it triggered 
for the first time in about 10,000 bootups the moment i applied your 
version of the reverts. When i applied the small diff the warning did 
not come back.

quoted text
> All of these would be useful points of information to determine if 
> this might be normal or not.
> 
> In theory, if the remove port the device is connected to gets 
> extremely congested, emits a pause frame to your machine, but never 
> releases that pause, this (new) warning could trigger.
> 
> This warning was added by Arjan in 2.6.25 FYI in order to diagnose the 
> not-normal cases better.

ok, should we then remove that warning, if it's spurious? kerneloops.org 
has picked up a few other instances of this warning as well:

  http://www.kerneloops.org/searchfile.php?search=net%2Fsched%2Fsch_generic.c&btnG=Filen...

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/