Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:36:05 +0200 From: Stefano Garzarella <stefanogarzarella@gmail.com> To: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, Xin LI <d@delphij.net> Subject: Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT Message-ID: <CAO0mX5Ziwr_6OYQ87nypMrnGZ7tDrjZpQtHU31=uNTso6qo3Mw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <FB5130A7-B9CF-4CB0-BD21-94637C1B608F@sarenet.es> References: <CA%2BhQ2%2BimE=%2BncZwpHGhWb175mYiAKV78MV=Dfc1GJf=3XYciPQ@mail.gmail.com> <453BA9EC-BB63-4258-8141-847F41315E1E@sarenet.es> <CA%2BhQ2%2BjaP2fuMaCoorLpGu=uWDPgHy3at5UdtLAOXM2d6uoWkg@mail.gmail.com> <6C8CF68D-68E2-4168-AA0A-6A629D363371@sarenet.es> <CAO0mX5bmXnQGuEgSYoBxy8bQK5i3B2MG0LBmJ7A178W1B5sqDw@mail.gmail.com> <EAE3F867-D084-43EC-962B-3F2EB5782C68@sarenet.es> <CAO0mX5Ys%2BraCwaQT0eB6jBFWGGAJ6kStsWPRVKOkfNdsP=17Kg@mail.gmail.com> <B8458978-1ACC-4083-B29C-E1DFFCFCA3EA@sarenet.es> <CAO0mX5a=VWG_bRhvpL3WCZjvbVRMY2hfgfRLc8qHAtVKO3=-2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAO0mX5b4txBAvnjFEJPFgzvraOxY=YKH-HYQnf8B-OVPk3yZHA@mail.gmail.com> <FB5130A7-B9CF-4CB0-BD21-94637C1B608F@sarenet.es>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2014-07-15 12:00 GMT+02:00 Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es>: > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > I just tried to run iperf3 with this patch and STABLE-10 and it seems to > > work. > > Do you have a panic? > > So far, so good. I've ran a couple of iperf3 tests (60 seconds, trying > both directions) and it doesn't crash. > > Without the fixes I obtained a panic quite reliably, in less than 30 > seconds. > Still trying. But the bugs you mentioned (lack of locking and > deallocating, etc) seem to be consistent with the kind of failures I saw > and their apparent randomness. > Well. > > So, asking for spiritual counsel now. Would you use this driver in a > production environment instead of the 747 version downloaded from Emulex? I > think the latter is giving slightly better performance but, anyway, I > disable LRO and TSO because I see a horrible impact on NFS performance. > > I made a diff between the two versions (CURRENT and 747) and I saw that the main difference is in the management of buf_ring through drbr API. In the CURRENT driver they use a new function drbr_peek() instead of drbr_dequeue() and I think this is better. However, even in the 747 version seems to have the problem of the lack of locking. Cheers, Stefano Cheers, > > > > > > Borja. > > -- Stefano Garzarella
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAO0mX5Ziwr_6OYQ87nypMrnGZ7tDrjZpQtHU31=uNTso6qo3Mw>