From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 8 20:57:08 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A8A554 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.egr.msu.edu (dauterive.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.168]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E304116D for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dauterive (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.egr.msu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A58328E2B for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:57:01 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at egr.msu.edu Received: from mail.egr.msu.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by dauterive (dauterive.egr.msu.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fu2PZRfMxGxC for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:57:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from EGR authenticated sender Message-ID: <52CDBB9C.6080406@egr.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:57:00 -0500 From: Adam McDougall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10.0-RC1: bad mbuf leak? References: <1387204500.12061.60192349.19EAE1B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <3A115E20-3ADB-49BA-885D-16189B97842B@FreeBSD.org> <20131225133356.GL71033@FreeBSD.org> <20140104195505.GV71033@glebius.int.ru> <11BB3983-28F7-40EF-87DA-FD95BD297EA7@FreeBSD.org> <1389033148.5084.67285353.3B31094A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <52CDB5FB.90108@egr.msu.edu> <1389213929.2278.68300789.3FE331A1@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1389213929.2278.68300789.3FE331A1@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:57:08 -0000 On 01/08/2014 15:45, Mark Felder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014, at 14:32, Adam McDougall wrote: >> On 01/06/2014 13:32, Mark Felder wrote: >>> It's not looking promising. mbuf usage is really high again. I haven't >>> hit the point where the system is unavailable on the network but it >>> appears to be approaching. >>> >>> root@skeletor:/usr/home/feld # netstat -m >>> 4093391/3109/4096500 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) >>> 1025/1725/2750/1017354 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >>> 1025/1725 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use >>> (current/cache) >>> 0/492/492/508677 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use >>> (current/cache/total/max) >>> 0/0/0/150719 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >>> 0/0/0/84779 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) >>> 1025397K/6195K/1031593K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) >>> 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 requests for sfbufs denied >>> 0 requests for sfbufs delayed >>> 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile >>> >>> root@skeletor:/usr/home/feld # vmstat -z | grep mbuf >>> mbuf_packet: 256, 6511065, 1025, 1725, 9153363, 0, >>> 0 >>> mbuf: 256, 6511065, 4092367, 1383,74246554, 0, >>> 0 >>> mbuf_cluster: 2048, 1017354, 2750, 0, 2750, 0, >>> 0 >>> mbuf_jumbo_page: 4096, 508677, 0, 492, 2655317, 0, 0 >>> mbuf_jumbo_9k: 9216, 150719, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 >>> mbuf_jumbo_16k: 16384, 84779, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 >>> mbuf_ext_refcnt: 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 >>> >>> root@skeletor:/usr/home/feld # uptime >>> 12:30PM up 15:05, 1 user, load averages: 0.24, 0.23, 0.27 >>> >>> root@skeletor:/usr/home/feld # uname -a >>> FreeBSD skeletor.feld.me 10.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 10.0-PRERELEASE #17 >>> r260339M: Sun Jan 5 21:23:10 CST 2014 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> Can you try your NFS mounts from directly within the jails, or stop one >> or more jails for a night and see if it becomes stable? Anything else >> unusual besides the jails/nullfs such as pf, ipfw, nat, vimages? My >> systems running 10 seem fine including the one running poudriere builds >> which uses jails and I think nullfs, but not nfs. Do mbufs go up when >> you cause nfs traffic? >> > > You can't do NFS mounts from within a jail, which is why I have to do it > this way. > > Nothing else unusual. Very few services running. The box sits mostly > idle and the traffic is light -- watching some TV shows (the jail runs > Plex Media Server). I haven't been able to locate a reason for the mbufs > to go up, but often a wake up in the morning after it has been doing > nothing all night and see it made a large jump in mbufs used. When I'm > running an 11-CURRENT kernel these problems do not exist. Can you have a script run some stats like netstat -m every few minutes during the night to see if it happens at a particular time? I'm wondering if the system scripts are crawling the mountpoints to cause this. Alternately, as far as NFS mounts and jails, with a reasonable amount of work could you replace the nullfs/nfs usage with temporary NFS mounts outside of the jails but mounted in the jail root fs?