On 2020-02-20 02:01, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Questions:
* are these things recursive?
Yes.
* what are the rules around sleeping? I've seen some ... discussions
that were quite animated around this.
Any non-sleepable lock is allowed under EPOCH(9).
* what should I be doing as an epoch tracker
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
Aleksandr Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gleb...@freebsd.org,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #1 from Hans Petter Selasky ---
The netgraph code might need to be refactored. Allocating a network interface
inside the send path seems risky.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
On 19 Feb 2020, at 23:48, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:08:50PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote:
K> So I suspect our call stack is something like virtqueue_intr() ->
K> vtnet_rx_vq_intr() -> vtnet_rxq_eof() -> vtnet_rxq_input() ->
K> ether_input().
K> I don’t see anything entering
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|n...@freebsd.org |
Assignee|b...@freebsd.o
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
Aleksandr Fedorov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aleksandr.fedorov@itglobal.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #2 from Aleksandr Fedorov ---
Yes, it seems that netgraph needs some love.
In this case, the function ngc_send() entering to the epoch. So, this is the
control path, not data. Data path enter to the epoch from ngthread(),
ng_ca
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #3 from Aleksandr Fedorov ---
Sorry, I'm new to epoch (9). Can we sleep(9) after NET_EPOCH_ENTER? Can a call
to NET_EPOCH_ENTER be recursive?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
__
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #4 from Hans Petter Selasky ---
No, EPOCH(9) is similar to the properties of a mtx_lock() / mtx_unlock(). You
cannot sleep(9) under EPOCH(9).
--HPS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #7 from l...@donnerhacke.de ---
I do have a netgraph system with more than 20k nodes. So providing larger
buffers will not suffice. It's a quick workaround, thank you for this.
But the real solution needs to transfer chunks of t
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #8 from l...@donnerhacke.de ---
May somebody with sufficent rights change the subject line of this ticket from
"through nethraph" to "through netgraph"? ... I missed it while searching.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Y
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
Kyle Evans changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kev...@freebsd.org
Summary
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #9 from Vladislav V. Prodan ---
(In reply to lutz from comment #8)
This is an excuse to create another bug report, but already to bugzilla, so
that they add the ability to search by similar words
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #5 from Aleksandr Fedorov ---
Thank you for the clarification.
Than, if you call #ngctl mkpeer . [NODE_TYPE] [SRC_HOOK] [DST_HOOK]
It's go through ngc_send(), which enter to the epoch:
http://bxr.su/FreeBSD/sys/netgraph/ng_sock
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #10 from Vladislav V. Prodan ---
(In reply to Aleksandr Fedorov from comment #6)
Yes, thank you.
On FreeBsd 12.1, with kern.ipc.maxsockbuf = 83886080 and adding 564 vlan, we
get the binary format:
# ngctl msg em2:lower gettab
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #6 from Hans Petter Selasky ---
Yes, that is correct.
--HPS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #11 from Vladislav V. Prodan ---
I opened a new ticket for the kernel panic issue - PR 244247.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-n
Folks,
We have been doing some work to improve IPv6 SLAAC's response to
renumbering events.
The set of proposed modifications are here:
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum-02
Where's an elaborate problem statement can be found here:
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 18/02/2020 16:09, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > My general experience with post-iflib vmxnet3 is that vmxnet3 has some
> > peculiarities that result in a certain "impedance mismatch" with iflib.
> > Although we now have a bit less code and it
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:16:06PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote:
K> On 19 Feb 2020, at 23:48, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
K> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:08:50PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote:
K> > K> So I suspect our call stack is something like virtqueue_intr() ->
K> > K> vtnet_rx_vq_intr() -> vtnet_rxq_
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
--- Comment #7 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: glebius
Date: Fri Feb 21 04:10:42 UTC 2020
New revision: 358193
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/358193
Log:
Revert one half of previous
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
Gleb Smirnoff changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|New
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||mfc-stable12?,
|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244241
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|panic |crash, regression
On 20/02/2020 8:16 pm, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 2020-02-20 02:01, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Questions:
* are these things recursive?
Yes.
* what are the rules around sleeping? I've seen some ... discussions
that were quite animated around this.
Any non-sleepable lock is allowed under EPOCH
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #13 from Vladislav V. Prodan ---
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #12)
Look at PR 244247. I almost gave the settings and scripts there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You ar
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242070
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|scp on 12.1p1-RELEASE is|if_vmx: scp on
|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243871
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||n...@freebsd.org
--
You are recei
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187835
--- Comment #14 from Vladislav V. Prodan ---
(In reply to Vladislav V. Prodan from comment #13)
If there is no data, I will provide.
If necessary, I will give access to VPS over IPv6.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the a
29 matches
Mail list logo
