From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 21:29:48 2004 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 09DA616A4CF; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:29:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70EA343D39; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:29:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9JLTiJt022724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i9JLTd16044522; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16757.34627.710821.812489@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:39 -0400 (EDT) To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: References: <16750.34028.715601.329873@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf leak with SMP and debug.mpsafenet=1 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: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:29:48 -0000 Robert Watson writes: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > Log into another host and do: > > > > % while 1 > > while? ssh 'netstat -m | grep mbufs' > > while? netperf224 -Hscream -tUDP_STREAM -l60 -- -m 1 >& /dev/null > > while? end > > I must have missed this e-mail previously, sorry about the slow response. > John Baldwin pointed me at it wondering why I hadn't answered, and that's > why :-). Funny you should write now. I noticed green's MFC of a fix for mbuf leaks and was trying RELENG_5 from this morning. Alas, it does not fix my problem. > Is the number of mbufs lost proportional to total run time since the > start, or number of runs since start? I.e., if you shorten 60 seconds to > 6 seconds but sample at the same rate, what impact does that have on the > measured leakage? I just tried that and it looks like the leakage stays rougly the same. It seems to be roughly 100-150 mbufs/second with this setup. I hooked up the em0 GbE interfaces, and that leaks nearly as bad as my myrinet nic (at least with a linux sender, hooked back-to-back). Em0 seems to be leaking at a few thoundsand pkts/sec, so I wasn't brave enough to do a long run.. Drew