From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 21 11:15:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CF116A4BF for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacom.phy.uic.edu (nacom.phy.uic.edu [131.193.191.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9798C43FF2 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cosmin@nacom.phy.uic.edu) Received: from nacom.phy.uic.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nacom.phy.uic.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7LIFFIF054725 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:15:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cosmin@nacom.phy.uic.edu) Received: (from cosmin@localhost) by nacom.phy.uic.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7LIFFph054724 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:15:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:15:15 -0500 From: cosmin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030821181515.GB48349@nacom.phy.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: malloc message with nfs transfer X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:15:18 -0000 malloc() of "64" with the following non-sleepable locks held: exclusive sleep mutex inpr = 0 (0xc4444ef0) locked @ /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:378 exclusive sleep mutex netisr lock r = 0 (0xc061be80) locked @ /usr/src/sys/net/netisr.c:215 I'm getting those on the console, and it seems that they only happen when users start an nfs transfer to the nfs exported filesystem. The exported filesystem is a vinum raid5 array but I don't know if that has anything to do with the messages. Before I upgraded from 4.8, I used to be able to send at about 8mb/s to the nfs exported raid5. After upgrading to 5.1-CURRENT, the maximum speed has been only 4mb/s. I'm wondering if the messages above have anything to do with the performance drop.