From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 3 22:29:05 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268DC106566B; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:29:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tom@tomjudge.com) Received: from tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk (tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk [80.68.91.100]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E6C8FC14; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE44348A9A; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:29:03 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk Received: from tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jd+vkNONOA46; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:28:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rita.nodomain (unknown [192.168.205.6]) by tomjudge.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9968448A93; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:28:58 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4AF0AE70.7030004@tomjudge.com> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:28:00 +0000 From: Tom Judge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Atkinson References: <200911030937.11619.pieter@degoeje.nl> <4AF05177.7030705@tomjudge.com> <4AF06017.6000505@tomjudge.com> <20091103221739.E75071@ury.york.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20091103221739.E75071@ury.york.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pieter de Goeje , Weldon S Godfrey 3 , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: FreeBSD 8.0 - network stack crashes? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:29:05 -0000 Gavin Atkinson wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Tom Judge wrote: >> Tom Judge wrote: >>> Weldon S Godfrey 3 wrote: >>>> we are using onboard NICs on the Dell using the bce driver. We did >>>> try several times to see if using an intel PCIexpress card using the >>>> em driver, and we had the same symptoms. >>>> >>>> Could the bce driver have the same leak? >>> >>> The bce driver does not have a memory leak, it does however have a >>> bug which causes memory fragmentation leading to denied mbuf allocation. >>> >>> There is a work around for this in current, you can get the patch >>> like this: >>> >>> http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/head/ >>> >> That should be: >> >> svn diff -r 198319:198320 http://svn.freebsd.org/base/head >> >>> You need to put >>> >>> options BCE_JUMBO_HDRSPLIT >>> >>> In your kernel to enable the work arround. > > Unless I'm missing something, these seem like they may be totally > different bugs. The symptoms that Weldon S Godfrey has show the number > of "mbuf clusters in use" rising to the point at which the limit is > reached, whereas the thread on -stable where BCE_JUMBO_HDRSPLIT is > recommended has the symptom of "requests for 9k jumbo clusters denied" > increasing and the mbuf clusters not being anywhere near to the maximum. > > So, I think there may be some confusion here. Jumbo frames are not in use what what I have read in the thread however there are denied requests for mbuf+clusters, so this could be the issue in the bce driver with standrad size frames. See: 0/201276/90662 requests for mbufs denied (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) I guess that there are 2 issues at work here, adding the bce patch should not cause any problems but may resolve the issue when using the bce driver. Is it not worth a try? Tom