Christopher Forgeron wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all, > > I ran Jack's ixgbe MJUM9BYTES removal patch, and let iometer hammer > away at the NFS store overnight - But the problem is still there. > > > From what I read, I think the MJUM9BYTES removal is probably good > cleanup (as long as it doesn't trade performance on a lightly memory > loaded system for performance on a heavily memory loaded system). If > I can stabilize my system, I may attempt those benchmarks. > > > I think the fix will be obvious at boot for me - My 9.2 has a 'clean' > netstat > - Until I can boot and see a 'netstat -m' that looks similar to that, > I'm going to have this problem. > > > Markus: Do your systems show denied mbufs at boot like mine does? > > > Turning off TSO works for me, but at a performance hit. > > I'll compile Rick's patch (and extra debugging) this morning and let > you know soon. > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Christopher Forgeron < > csforge...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > BTW - I think this will end up being a TSO issue, not the patch that > Jack applied. > > When I boot Jack's patch (MJUM9BYTES removal) this is what netstat -m > shows: > > 21489/2886/24375 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 4080/626/4706/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 4080/587 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > (current/cache) > 16384/50/16434/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > 0/0/0/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 79068K/2173K/81241K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > 18831/545/4542 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) > 15626/0/0 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 > > Here is an un-patched boot: > > 21550/7400/28950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 4080/3760/7840/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 4080/2769 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > (current/cache) > 0/42/42/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > 16439/129/16568/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > > 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 161498K/10699K/172197K bytes allocated to network > (current/cache/total) > 18345/155/4099 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) > 3/3723/0 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 > > > > See how removing the MJUM9BYTES is just pushing the problem from the > 9k jumbo cluster into the 4k jumbo cluster? > > Compare this to my FreeBSD 9.2 STABLE machine from ~ Dec 2013 : Exact > same hardware, revisions, zpool size, etc. Just it's running an > older FreeBSD. > > # uname -a > FreeBSD SAN1.XXXXX 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0: Wed Dec 25 > 15:12:14 AST 2013 aatech@FreeBSD-Update > Server:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 > > root@SAN1:/san1 # uptime > 7:44AM up 58 days, 38 mins, 4 users, load averages: 0.42, 0.80, 0.91 > > root@SAN1:/san1 # netstat -m > 37930/15755/53685 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 4080/10996/15076/524288 mbuf clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > 4080/5775 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > (current/cache) > 0/692/692/262144 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > 32773/4257/37030/96000 9k jumbo clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > > 0/0/0/508538 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 312599K/67011K/379611K 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) > 0/0/0 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) > 0 requests for sfbufs denied > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed > 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > Lastly, please note this link: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2012-October/033660.html > Hmm, this mentioned the ethernet header being in the TSO segment. I think I already mentioned my TCP/IP is rusty and I know diddly about TSO. However, at a glance it does appear the driver uses ether_output() for TSO segments and, as such, I think an ethernet header is prepended to the TSO segment. (This makes sense, since how else would the hardware know what ethernet header to use for the TCP segments generated.)
I think prepending the ethernet header could push the total length over 64K, given a default if_hw_tsomax == IP_MAXPACKET. And over 64K isn't going to fit in 32 * 2K (mclbytes) clusters, etc and so forth. Anyhow, I think the attached patch will reduce if_hw_tsomax, so that the result should fit in 32 clusters and avoid EFBIG for this case, so it might be worth a try? (I still can't think of why the CSUM_TSO bit isn't set for the printf() case, but it seems TSO segments could generate EFBIG errors.) Maybe worth a try, rick > It's so old that I assume the TSO leak that he speaks of has been > patched, but perhaps not. More things to look into tomorrow. > > > > >
--- dev/ixgbe/ixgbe.c.sav 2014-03-19 17:44:34.000000000 -0400 +++ dev/ixgbe/ixgbe.c 2014-03-21 19:25:46.000000000 -0400 @@ -2614,6 +2614,9 @@ ixgbe_setup_interface(device_t dev, stru ifp->if_snd.ifq_drv_maxlen = adapter->num_tx_desc - 2; IFQ_SET_READY(&ifp->if_snd); #endif + if ((adapter->num_segs * MCLBYTES - ETHER_HDR_LEN) < IP_MAXPACKET) + ifp->if_hw_tsomax = adapter->num_segs * MCLBYTES - + ETHER_HDR_LEN; ether_ifattach(ifp, adapter->hw.mac.addr);
_______________________________________________ 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"
