From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 20 22:24:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A20F0DD3 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-x22e.google.com (mail-vc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A0A5D2B for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ld13so1758765vcb.33 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:24:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zIBnyawiKBP5Iv8jxAmTnEmI+JAL1oLjovA9WlkrKGs=; b=w52Sz/MBh6B6W7WS5YonnDg9WQ8PBaCR6kbBEUTTBO1LPNUjDHLdJ/B+D1Cb9kjsDz nI0ioL8Aj3mSRvJTL1Rqe+wCltmM2JTxu7uYlQOCrCpFSjAq6Mf0qNybLkob8nQmSO3X 77oRvEK94YDwcX81uwPP6t9/4Q1W8hcelkv4CYJX/IDct8+Hyhhb2UcsnSAzFlW11F1G b1hzVL2c8tOyknAJpgOkN4gOY5XrnnLi8/KN6EugEmoExLJsXXwGUKW1kJqGuK19+9Je glpuyGQnIXkKpEu19S9tsKvO61ZaHfJkpmjSgb56KNQnYBSsbTzAo84S2eS56LnzxGeE sIew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.241.106 with SMTP id wh10mr30009421vdc.16.1395354286558; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.11.135 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:24:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1159309884.25490921.1395282576806.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <201403202113.s2KLD7GB085085@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:24:46 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 9.2 ixgbe tx queue hang From: Jack Vogel To: Christopher Forgeron Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: FreeBSD Net , Garrett Wollman X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:24:47 -0000 I strongly discourage anyone from disabling TSO on 10G, its necessary to get the performance one wants to see on the hardware. Here is a patch to do what i'm talking about: *** ixgbe.c Fri Jan 10 18:12:20 2014 --- ixgbe.jfv.c Thu Mar 20 23:04:15 2014 *************** ixgbe_init_locked(struct adapter *adapte *** 1140,1151 **** */ if (adapter->max_frame_size <= 2048) adapter->rx_mbuf_sz = MCLBYTES; - else if (adapter->max_frame_size <= 4096) - adapter->rx_mbuf_sz = MJUMPAGESIZE; - else if (adapter->max_frame_size <= 9216) - adapter->rx_mbuf_sz = MJUM9BYTES; else ! adapter->rx_mbuf_sz = MJUM16BYTES; /* Prepare receive descriptors and buffers */ if (ixgbe_setup_receive_structures(adapter)) { --- 1140,1147 ---- */ if (adapter->max_frame_size <= 2048) adapter->rx_mbuf_sz = MCLBYTES; else ! adapter->rx_mbuf_sz = MJUMPAGESIZE; /* Prepare receive descriptors and buffers */ if (ixgbe_setup_receive_structures(adapter)) { On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Christopher Forgeron wrote: > Hi Jack, > > I'm on ixgbe 2.5.15 > > I see a few other threads about using MJUMPAGESIZE instead of MJUM9BYTES. > > If you have a patch you'd like me to test, I'll compile it in and let you > know. I was just looking at Garrett's if_em.c patch and thinking about > applying it to ixgbe.. > > As it stands I seem to not be having the problem now that I have disabled > TSO on ix0, but I still need more test runs to confirm - Which is also in > line (i think) with what you are all saying. > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> What he's saying is that the driver should not be using 9K mbuf clusters, >> I thought >> this had been changed but I see the code in HEAD is still using the >> larger clusters >> when you up the mtu. I will put it on my list to change with the next >> update to HEAD. >> >> >> What version of ixgbe are you using? >> >> Jack >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Christopher Forgeron < >> csforgeron@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have found this: >>> >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2013-October/036955.html >>> >>> I think what you're saying is that; >>> - a MTU of 9000 doesn't need to equal a 9k mbuf / jumbo cluster >>> - modern NIC drivers can gather 9000 bytes of data from various memory >>> locations >>> - The fact that I'm seeing 9k jumbo clusters is showing me that my driver >>> is trying to allocate 9k of contiguous space, and it's failing. >>> >>> Please correct me if I'm off here, I'd love to understand more. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Garrett Wollman < >>> wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> wrote: >>> >>> > In article >>> > , >>> > csforgeron@gmail.com writes: >>> > >>> > >50/27433/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) >>> > >>> > This is going to screw you. You need to make sure that no NIC driver >>> > ever allocates 9k jumbo pages -- unless you are using one of those >>> > mythical drivers that can't do scatter/gather DMA on receive, which >>> > you don't appear to be. >>> > >>> > These failures occur when the driver is trying to replenish its >>> > receive queue, but is unable to allocate three *physically* contiguous >>> > pages of RAM to construct the 9k jumbo cluster (of which the remaining >>> > 3k is simply wasted). This happens on any moderately active server, >>> > once physical memory gets checkerboarded with active single pages, >>> > particularly with ZFS where those pages are wired in kernel memory and >>> > so can't be evicted. >>> > >>> > -GAWollman >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> >