Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:04:07 +0100 From: Markus Gebert <markus.gebert@hostpoint.ch> To: Christopher Forgeron <csforgeron@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 9.2 ixgbe tx queue hang Message-ID: <D1B4320A-DFFD-4647-8A43-238A088D7EF1@hostpoint.ch> In-Reply-To: <CAB2_NwBSc3KWPYD-xbWYpRFTxpsKnXEr4V1ySP5g83aZM59MvQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAB2_NwB=21H5pcx=Wzz5gV38eRN%2BtfwhY28m2FZhdEi6X3JE7g@mail.gmail.com> <1543350122.637684.1395368002237.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <CAB2_NwCGsAHdMFPoST05azb9K_O-K_khk3Bi1sF2om3puCcyCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAB2_NwC3on1xP3UAutkQa-3zu_JhK0%2B-ZjVb6_3NVemw2Or-KQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB2_NwBSc3KWPYD-xbWYpRFTxpsKnXEr4V1ySP5g83aZM59MvQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21.03.2014, at 12:47, Christopher Forgeron <csforgeron@gmail.com> = wrote: > Hello all, >=20 > I ran Jack's ixgbe MJUM9BYTES removal patch, and let iometer hammer = away > at the NFS store overnight - But the problem is still there. >=20 > =46rom what I read, I think the MJUM9BYTES removal is probably good = cleanup > (as long as it doesn't trade performance on a lightly memory loaded = system > for performance on a heavily memory loaded system). If I can stabilize = my > system, I may attempt those benchmarks. >=20 > I think the fix will be obvious at boot for me - My 9.2 has a 'clean' > netstat > - Until I can boot and see a 'netstat -m' that looks similar to that, = I'm > going to have this problem. >=20 > Markus: Do your systems show denied mbufs at boot like mine does? No. Our systems never show denied mbufs. Not on boot, not during normal = operations and also not when the problem is occuring. I don=92t know = what you do differently, but in our case neither 4k nor 9k mbufs get = used, only the normal ones. I=92m beginning to think that we look at different problems and at least = quite different symptoms of a similar problem. Have you had luck in = trying to find out, where EFBIG originates from in your case? Markus > Turning off TSO works for me, but at a performance hit. >=20 > I'll compile Rick's patch (and extra debugging) this morning and let = you > know soon. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Christopher Forgeron = <csforgeron@gmail.com >> wrote: >=20 >> BTW - I think this will end up being a TSO issue, not the patch that = Jack >> applied. >>=20 >> When I boot Jack's patch (MJUM9BYTES removal) this is what netstat -m >> shows: >>=20 >> 21489/2886/24375 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> 4080/626/4706/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> 4080/587 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use = (current/cache) >> 16384/50/16434/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use >> (current/cache/total/max) >> 0/0/0/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >>=20 >> 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> 79068K/2173K/81241K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) >> 18831/545/4542 requests for mbufs denied = (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >>=20 >> 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >> 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) >> 15626/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) >>=20 >> 0 requests for sfbufs denied >> 0 requests for sfbufs delayed >> 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile >>=20 >> Here is an un-patched boot: >>=20 >> 21550/7400/28950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> 4080/3760/7840/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> 4080/2769 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use = (current/cache) >> 0/42/42/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use >> (current/cache/total/max) >> 16439/129/16568/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) >>=20 >> 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> 161498K/10699K/172197K bytes allocated to network = (current/cache/total) >> 18345/155/4099 requests for mbufs denied = (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >>=20 >> 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >> 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) >> 3/3723/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) >>=20 >> 0 requests for sfbufs denied >> 0 requests for sfbufs delayed >> 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> See how removing the MJUM9BYTES is just pushing the problem from the = 9k >> jumbo cluster into the 4k jumbo cluster? >>=20 >> Compare this to my FreeBSD 9.2 STABLE machine from ~ Dec 2013 : Exact = same >> hardware, revisions, zpool size, etc. Just it's running an older = FreeBSD. >>=20 >> # uname -a >> FreeBSD SAN1.XXXXX 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0: Wed Dec 25 = 15:12:14 >> AST 2013 aatech@FreeBSD-Update = Server:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC >> amd64 >>=20 >> root@SAN1:/san1 # uptime >> 7:44AM up 58 days, 38 mins, 4 users, load averages: 0.42, 0.80, 0.91 >>=20 >> root@SAN1:/san1 # netstat -m >> 37930/15755/53685 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >> 4080/10996/15076/524288 mbuf clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) >> 4080/5775 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use = (current/cache) >> 0/692/692/262144 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use >> (current/cache/total/max) >> 32773/4257/37030/96000 9k jumbo clusters in use = (current/cache/total/max) >>=20 >> 0/0/0/508538 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >> 312599K/67011K/379611K bytes allocated to network = (current/cache/total) >>=20 >> 0/0/0 requests for mbufs denied (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >> 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >> 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) >> 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) >> 0/0/0 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) >> 0 requests for sfbufs denied >> 0 requests for sfbufs delayed >> 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile >> 0 calls to protocol drain routines >>=20 >> Lastly, please note this link: >>=20 >> = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2012-October/033660.html >>=20 >> It's so old that I assume the TSO leak that he speaks of has been = patched, >> but perhaps not. More things to look into tomorrow. >>=20 >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D1B4320A-DFFD-4647-8A43-238A088D7EF1>