Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81338 > unrolled thread

Bug#1059390: linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1059390: linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2023-12-28 10:40 +0100
    Processed: Re: Bug#1059390: linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large  number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2023-12-28 10:40 +0100
    Bug#1059390: linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver Matthias Scheler <tron@zhadum.org.uk> - 2023-12-28 13:50 +0100

#81338 — Bug#1059390: linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

Hi Matthias,

On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 10:39:22AM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> Package: src:linux
> Version: 6.5.13-1
> Severity: normal
> Tags: upstream
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> I'm using a Shuttle DS20UV2 as my broadband router and firewall. After
> updating it from Debian 12.4 to Trixie yesterday one of its network
> interfaces started reporting a large and ever increasing number of
> missed packets:
> 
> > ip -s link show eno1
> 3: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1508 qdisc fq_codel state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>     link/ether 80:ee:73:XX:XX:XX brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>     RX:  bytes packets errors dropped  missed   mcast
>      991043595  846955      0       0    3691       0
>     TX:  bytes packets errors dropped carrier collsns
>      890811461  793387      0       0       0       0
>     altname enp0s31f6
> 
> The number was much larger before I rebooted the machine to
> test out some kernel parameter changes.
> 
> I originally had similar problems with Debian 12.x. But increasing
> the RX ring size from 256 to 1024 fixed the problem. Under Trixie
> neither this nor increasing the RX ring size to the maximum of 4096
> helps. I also tried to restrict the maximum C-state to 3 (down
> from 9) which again didn't help.
> 
> The interface in question is using an MTU of 1508 bytes to allow
> an MTU of 1500 bytes on PPPoE session running over it. The broadband
> link's maximum speed is 1 Gbit/sec. As such the incoming packet rate
> can be high at times.
> 
> There is another ehternet interface in this machine which is driven
> by the "igc" driver. It reports zero missed packets but it also not
> using mini jumbo frames.

And I assume you have the same as well with 6.6.8-1 from the newest
stable series as present in unstable?

If so I guess you are in a good position to report that upstream, but
please keep this downstream bug as well in the loop (or ping it about
updates).

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#81340 — Processed: Re: Bug#1059390: linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #1059390 [src:linux] linux-image-6.5.0-5-amd64: Large number of missed packets reported by "e1000e" driver
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
1059390: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059390
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81341

On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:36:40AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > There is another ehternet interface in this machine which is driven
> > by the "igc" driver. It reports zero missed packets but it also not
> > using mini jumbo frames.
> 
> And I assume you have the same as well with 6.6.8-1 from the newest
> stable series as present in unstable?

I have not tried that so far. Is there a clean way (without messing up
the package management) to install that kernel?

> If so I guess you are in a good position to report that upstream, but
> please keep this downstream bug as well in the loop (or ping it about
> updates).

What is the best way to report Linux kernel bugs?

	Kind regards

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://zhadum.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web