Hi all, I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than frame. Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; disabling device Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled state I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit this (as far as I know). Are there any other things that could trigger this? -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote:> Hi all, > > I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following > getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: > > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than > frame. > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; > disabling device > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled state > > I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the > kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit > this (as far as I know). > > Are there any other things that could trigger this? >You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. Wei.> -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following >> getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: >> >> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than >> frame. >> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; >> disabling device >> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled state >> >> I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the >> kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit >> this (as far as I know). >> >> Are there any other things that could trigger this? >> > > You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is > not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. > > Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / > netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. >BTW with that series you should be able to get rid of the MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack. Wei.
On 26/04/2013 1:36 AM, Wei Liu wrote:> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following >>> getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: >>> >>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than >>> frame. >>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; >>> disabling device >>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled state >>> >>> I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the >>> kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit >>> this (as far as I know). >>> >>> Are there any other things that could trigger this? >>> >> >> You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is >> not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. >> >> Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / >> netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. >> > > BTW with that series you should be able to get rid of the > MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack.This could be quite difficult. The DomU kernel is RHEL based - and not easily changed without sending the patch upstream to RH - which may or may not apply it. My google-fu has failed a little here - do you have a link to the patches? Is it against Xen or the kernel? Further, is it something that just altering the Dom0 part would resolve? -- Steven Haigh Email: netwiz@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299
I guess those patches posted by Wei Liu are suitable for all kernels regardless it is used for domU or dom0. However the fix to address the guest interface is for dom0 and that is why Wei Liu mentioned that you should be able to revert your "MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack". Wei Liu posted those patches (few versions) few times to xen-devel mailing list besides others. I guess should be this http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-04/msg02118.html is the latest for net-next. Search xen-devel with Author "Wei Liu" you should be able to get what you want. Thanks. Kindest regards, Giam Teck Choon On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Steven Haigh <netwiz@crc.id.au> wrote:> On 26/04/2013 1:36 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following >>>> getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: >>>> >>>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than >>>> frame. >>>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; >>>> disabling device >>>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled >>>> state >>>> >>>> I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the >>>> kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit >>>> this (as far as I know). >>>> >>>> Are there any other things that could trigger this? >>>> >>>> >>> You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is >>> not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. >>> >>> Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / >>> netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. >>> >>> >> BTW with that series you should be able to get rid of the >> MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack. >> > > This could be quite difficult. The DomU kernel is RHEL based - and not > easily changed without sending the patch upstream to RH - which may or may > not apply it. > > My google-fu has failed a little here - do you have a link to the patches? > Is it against Xen or the kernel? Further, is it something that just > altering the Dom0 part would resolve? > > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > > ______________________________**_________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 05:21:06AM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote:> On 26/04/2013 1:36 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following > >>> getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: > >>> > >>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than > >>> frame. > >>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; > >>> disabling device > >>> Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled state > >>> > >>> I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the > >>> kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit > >>> this (as far as I know). > >>> > >>> Are there any other things that could trigger this? > >>> > >> > >> You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is > >> not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. > >> > >> Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / > >> netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. > >> > > > > BTW with that series you should be able to get rid of the > > MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack. > > This could be quite difficult. The DomU kernel is RHEL based - and not > easily changed without sending the patch upstream to RH - which may or > may not apply it. > > My google-fu has failed a little here - do you have a link to the > patches? Is it against Xen or the kernel? Further, is it something that > just altering the Dom0 part would resolve? >They are for Linux kernel only. Xen is not involved. To get rid of your MAX_SKB_FRAGS hack, you need to patch Dom0 only. To fix "Frag is bigger than frame", you need to patch DomU. If that''s not possible at the moment, I remember seeing a thread about disabling guest GSO can workaround ths problem. You can give it a shot. Wei.> -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:21:30AM +0100, Teck Choon Giam wrote:> I guess those patches posted by Wei Liu are suitable for all kernels regardless it is used for domU or dom0. However the fix to address the guest interface is for dom0 and that is why Wei Liu mentioned that you should be able to revert your "MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack". > > Wei Liu posted those patches (few versions) few times to xen-devel mailing list besides others. I guess should be this http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-04/msg02118.html is the latest for net-next. Search xen-devel with Author "Wei Liu" you should be able to get what you want. >Yes, that''s the final series. To apply those four fixes, you would need to cherry-pick 3 prerequisit changesets though. Search for my name in DaveM''s net-next tree and you will see three mechanical fixes prior to those four. Wei.> Thanks. > > Kindest regards, > Giam Teck Choon > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Steven Haigh <netwiz@crc.id.au<mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au>> wrote: > On 26/04/2013 1:36 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com<mailto:wei.liu2@citrix.com>> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote: > Hi all, > > I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following > getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: > > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than > frame. > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; > disabling device > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled state > > I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the > kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit > this (as far as I know). > > Are there any other things that could trigger this? > > > You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is > not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. > > Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / > netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. > > > BTW with that series you should be able to get rid of the > MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack. > > This could be quite difficult. The DomU kernel is RHEL based - and not easily changed without sending the patch upstream to RH - which may or may not apply it. > > My google-fu has failed a little here - do you have a link to the patches? Is it against Xen or the kernel? Further, is it something that just altering the Dom0 part would resolve? > > > -- > Steven Haigh > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au<mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au> > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org<mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xen.org> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel >
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:21:30AM +0100, Teck Choon Giam wrote: > > I guess those patches posted by Wei Liu are suitable for all kernels > regardless it is used for domU or dom0. However the fix to address the > guest interface is for dom0 and that is why Wei Liu mentioned that you > should be able to revert your "MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack". > > > > Wei Liu posted those patches (few versions) few times to xen-devel > mailing list besides others. I guess should be this > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-04/msg02118.html is the > latest for net-next. Search xen-devel with Author "Wei Liu" you should be > able to get what you want. > > > > Yes, that''s the final series. To apply those four fixes, you would need > to cherry-pick 3 prerequisit changesets though. Search for my name in > DaveM''s net-next tree and you will see three mechanical fixes prior to > those four. >Sorry for my previous top-posting :( Didn''t notice it since google changed its web interface for composing mails... which I not used to :p Ok... The four are: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=697089dc13c52d668322ac6cb8548520de27ed0e http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=9ecd1a75d977e2e8c48139c7d3efed183f898d94 http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=2810e5b9a7731ca5fce22bfbe12c96e16ac44b6f http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=03393fd5cc2b6cdeec32b704ecba64dbb0feae3c The 3 prerequisit ones are (I guess): http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=e2d617c0ccf658a55552955f07018ecfa0135210 http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=7158ff6d0c6aa3724fb51c6c11143d31e166eb1f http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=27f852282ab9a028f57da96d05c26f38c424a315 Thanks. Kindest regards, Giam Teck Choon> > Wei. > > > Thanks. > > > > Kindest regards, > > Giam Teck Choon > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Steven Haigh <netwiz@crc.id.au<mailto: > netwiz@crc.id.au>> wrote: > > On 26/04/2013 1:36 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com<mailto: > wei.liu2@citrix.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Steven Haigh wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I''ve noticed a couple of DomUs have networking freeze with the following > > getting printed to the Dom0''s /var/log/messages: > > > > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: Frag is bigger than > > frame. > > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: vif vif-4-0 vif.crc: fatal error; > > disabling device > > Apr 25 12:09:25 hosting kernel: br0: port 5(vif.crc) entered disabled > state > > > > I thought this was something to do with MAX_SKB_FRAGS - however the > > kernel I use has this increased to 19 - so in theory I shouldn''t hit > > this (as far as I know). > > > > Are there any other things that could trigger this? > > > > > > You''re seeing a netfront bug which is fixed in that series. And it is > > not related to MAX_SKB_FRAGS but related to GSO. > > > > Could you try applying my patch set "Bundle fixes for Xen netfront / > > netback" version 7. That series has been applied to DaveM''s net-next. > > > > > > BTW with that series you should be able to get rid of the > > MAX_SKB_FRAGS -> 19 hack. > > > > This could be quite difficult. The DomU kernel is RHEL based - and not > easily changed without sending the patch upstream to RH - which may or may > not apply it. > > > > My google-fu has failed a little here - do you have a link to the > patches? Is it against Xen or the kernel? Further, is it something that > just altering the Dom0 part would resolve? > > > > > > -- > > Steven Haigh > > > > Email: netwiz@crc.id.au<mailto:netwiz@crc.id.au> > > Web: https://www.crc.id.au > > Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 > > Fax: (03) 8338 0299 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org<mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xen.org> > > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel