On 27 September 2013 12:21, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013/09/27 10:09, Thomas Greer wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I'm seeing high CPU usage with bgpd session engine, and this was knocking out
>> all my routing. The only way to get routing back is to pill the bgpd and then
>> start it again. sthen suggested I ktraced it and the output is below.
>
> To clarify from an IRC discussion (tgreer please correct me if I'm wrong),
> AIUI this was running OK until announcements are made on a particular peer
> session, just bringing the session up without making announcements doesn't
> trigger it. Same happens when either announcing just a default route or
> when announcing full table.
>
>
>> This is on 5.3 however same issues experienced on 5.2. Different hardware
>> also.
>>
>> Peer is running bird. Versions: 1.3.8 and 1.3.11
>>
>> Kdump:
>>
>>  6326 bgpd     EMUL  "native"
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>
> EAGAIN - send(2) says "The socket is marked non-blocking and the requested
> operation would block."
>
> Anyone have clues?
>
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>   6326 bgpd     CALL  sendmsg(0x9,0x7f7ffffe7080,0)
>>   6326 bgpd     RET   sendmsg -1 errno 35 Resource temporarily unavailable
>>

how was fd 0x9 obtained?

Reply via email to