Hi, On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jack Vogel <jfvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > You have header split on?? I've not seen this before so something odd > is going on. > AFAIK, you never implemented header-split on em(4), despite hardware supporting it, so that question is pointless.
- Arnaud > Jack > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Juli Mallett <jmall...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> All, >> >> On both stable/9 and trunk I see that with one of either the 82571EB >> or 82574L I am flooded with messages in the form of: >> >> Refresh mbufs: hdr dmamap load failure - 22 >> >> If I disable msix, then the messages go away. I am not sure why msix >> vs. non-msix would matter in this case unless in the msix case there's >> some kind of case of spurious interrupts causing em_rxeof to be called >> without any packets available. If that happens then perhaps >> e1000_rx_unrefreshed() is called when no buffers have been processed >> and then em_refresh_mbufs wrongly refreshes the whole ring? >> >> This seems like it would be a problem because the >> bus_dmamap_load_mbuf_sg code is called unconditionally, even when a >> new mbuf isn't being allocated. In that case, the mapping already >> exists. Wouldn't it be necessary to unload and then reload the mbuf? >> So either it's a bug that em_refresh_mbufs is being called at all, or >> it's naively reusing mbufs in a way that actually guarantees an error, >> right? Also, in the case where it frees, only m_free is called — is >> there never a case where that should be an m_freem? I can imagine >> some, but they are likely impossible with the receive path of the >> driver. (I don't know for sure because the receive path and the mbuf >> refresh code keep changing and I've been unable to keep up.) >> >> I don't know which part it is, of course, because I don't know what >> port it's coming from. Like three other printfs in the driver where >> which device is being used matters tremendously, it uses a bare printf >> and not a device_printf. I could modify the driver, but for now >> disabling msix is easier than continuing to load new kernels to try to >> debug the problem. >> >> Is anyone else seeing this? Has anyone further investigated the >> problem? Is there a patch floating around and I just haven't found >> the right search terms? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Juli. >> >> PS: Yes, I know this is kind of a crappy bug report, sorry. I've had >> a limited amount of time to investigate so far, and don't want to >> delay reporting it until I am able to get more time with the >> problematic hardware. >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
