On 7/17/12 1:40 AM, Andrey Zonov wrote:
On 7/16/12 2:32 PM, Andrey Zonov wrote:
Hi,
I've got about 30 machines which panic sometimes in different places but
with the same panic message: "negative refcount 0xfe0007f1b4d4".
They are running under 9.0-STABLE@r234600M.
[snip]
Is this known
17.07.2012 06:23, Konstantin Belousov пишет:
> I do not think that your 'per-cpu' counter are correct. The thread
> migration or rescheduling causes the fetch or update of the wrong
> per-cpu structure. This allows parallel updates with undefined
> consequences.
>From practical point of view, I'l
Hi Lev,
Thanks for your response.
I browsed through Freebsd's network stack code and here is my observation.
If driver sets the queue index in receive path and sets FLOWID flag in mbuf
then this information will be stored in tcp control block and the same
queue index will be used while transmitting
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:33:24PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 17.07.2012 03:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> >>On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V
On 17.07.2012 03:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
the thing discussed a
On 17.07.2012 12:36, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 17.07.2012 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:4
On 17.07.2012 01:22, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 09:43:01PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 06.07.2012 10:11, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 05:40:37PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 04.07.2012 19:48, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
well, it seems that the co
On 17.07.2012 11:17, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
May be slightly off-topic, but do you have tested (or have plans to test )
with bidirectional traffic?
Situation with bi-directional traffic is better (not sure how much). I'm
intentionally not testing this case to discover rough cases (like
contested
On 7/16/2012 10:13 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
Old kernel from previous letters, same setup:
net.inet.ip.fw.enable=0
2.3 MPPS
net.inet.ip.fw.update_counters=0
net.inet.ip.fw.enable=1
1.93MPPS
net.inet.ip.fw.update_counters=1
1.74MPPS
Kernel with ipfw pcpu counters:
net.inet.ip.fw.enable=
