Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:25:18 -0300 From: Christopher Forgeron <csforgeron@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, Markus Gebert <markus.gebert@hostpoint.ch> Subject: Re: 9.2 ixgbe tx queue hang Message-ID: <CAB2_NwAzRyaHpvS=JXuksfsGmuYXJgYvMdD1tubWLgrDX4gdLw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <649240517.1169273.1395445493600.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <CAB2_NwBSc3KWPYD-xbWYpRFTxpsKnXEr4V1ySP5g83aZM59MvQ@mail.gmail.com> <649240517.1169273.1395445493600.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It may be a little early, but I think that's it! It's been running without error for nearly an hour - It's very rare it would go this long under this much load. I'm going to let it run longer, then abort and install the kernel with the extra printfs so I can see what value ifp->if_hw_tsomax is before you set it. It still had netstat -m denied entries on boot, but they are not climbing like they did before: $ uptime 9:32PM up 25 mins, 4 users, load averages: 2.43, 6.15, 4.65 $ netstat -m 21556/7034/28590 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 4080/3076/7156/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 4080/2281 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) 0/53/53/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 16444/118/16562/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 161545K/9184K/170729K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) 17972/2230/4111 requests for mbufs denied (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) 35/8909/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) 0 requests for sfbufs denied 0 requests for sfbufs delayed 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile - Started off bad with the 9k denials, but it's not going up! uptime 10:20PM up 1:13, 6 users, load averages: 2.10, 3.15, 3.67 root@SAN0:/usr/home/aatech # netstat -m 21569/7141/28710 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) 4080/3308/7388/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 4080/2281 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use (current/cache) 0/53/53/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 16447/121/16568/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) 161575K/9702K/171277K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) 17972/2261/4111 requests for mbufs denied (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) 35/8913/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) 0 requests for sfbufs denied 0 requests for sfbufs delayed 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile This is the 9.2 ixgbe that I'm patching into 10.0, I'll move into the base 10.0 code tomorrow. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > Christopher Forgeron wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > I ran Jack's ixgbe MJUM9BYTES removal patch, and let iometer hammer > > away at the NFS store overnight - But the problem is still there. > > > > > > From what I read, I think the MJUM9BYTES removal is probably good > > cleanup (as long as it doesn't trade performance on a lightly memory > > loaded system for performance on a heavily memory loaded system). If > > I can stabilize my system, I may attempt those benchmarks. > > > > > > I think the fix will be obvious at boot for me - My 9.2 has a 'clean' > > netstat > > - Until I can boot and see a 'netstat -m' that looks similar to that, > > I'm going to have this problem. > > > > > > Markus: Do your systems show denied mbufs at boot like mine does? > > > > > > Turning off TSO works for me, but at a performance hit. > > > > I'll compile Rick's patch (and extra debugging) this morning and let > > you know soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Christopher Forgeron < > > csforgeron@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW - I think this will end up being a TSO issue, not the patch that > > Jack applied. > > > > When I boot Jack's patch (MJUM9BYTES removal) this is what netstat -m > > shows: > > > > 21489/2886/24375 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > > 4080/626/4706/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > 4080/587 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > > (current/cache) > > 16384/50/16434/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > > (current/cache/total/max) > > 0/0/0/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > > > 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > 79068K/2173K/81241K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > > 18831/545/4542 requests for mbufs denied > > (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > > > > 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > > 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) > > 15626/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) > > > > 0 requests for sfbufs denied > > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed > > 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile > > > > Here is an un-patched boot: > > > > 21550/7400/28950 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > > 4080/3760/7840/6127254 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > 4080/2769 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > > (current/cache) > > 0/42/42/3063627 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > > (current/cache/total/max) > > 16439/129/16568/907741 9k jumbo clusters in use > > (current/cache/total/max) > > > > 0/0/0/510604 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > 161498K/10699K/172197K bytes allocated to network > > (current/cache/total) > > 18345/155/4099 requests for mbufs denied > > (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > > > > 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > > 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) > > 3/3723/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) > > > > 0 requests for sfbufs denied > > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed > > 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile > > > > > > > > See how removing the MJUM9BYTES is just pushing the problem from the > > 9k jumbo cluster into the 4k jumbo cluster? > > > > Compare this to my FreeBSD 9.2 STABLE machine from ~ Dec 2013 : Exact > > same hardware, revisions, zpool size, etc. Just it's running an > > older FreeBSD. > > > > # uname -a > > FreeBSD SAN1.XXXXX 9.2-STABLE FreeBSD 9.2-STABLE #0: Wed Dec 25 > > 15:12:14 AST 2013 aatech@FreeBSD-Update > > Server:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 > > > > root@SAN1:/san1 # uptime > > 7:44AM up 58 days, 38 mins, 4 users, load averages: 0.42, 0.80, 0.91 > > > > root@SAN1:/san1 # netstat -m > > 37930/15755/53685 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > > 4080/10996/15076/524288 mbuf clusters in use > > (current/cache/total/max) > > 4080/5775 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > > (current/cache) > > 0/692/692/262144 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > > (current/cache/total/max) > > 32773/4257/37030/96000 9k jumbo clusters in use > > (current/cache/total/max) > > > > 0/0/0/508538 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > > 312599K/67011K/379611K bytes allocated to network > > (current/cache/total) > > > > 0/0/0 requests for mbufs denied (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > > 0/0/0 requests for mbufs delayed (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) > > 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters delayed (4k/9k/16k) > > 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters denied (4k/9k/16k) > > 0/0/0 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) > > 0 requests for sfbufs denied > > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed > > 0 requests for I/O initiated by sendfile > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > Lastly, please note this link: > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2012-October/033660.html > > > Hmm, this mentioned the ethernet header being in the TSO segment. I think > I already mentioned my TCP/IP is rusty and I know diddly about TSO. > However, at a glance it does appear the driver uses ether_output() for > TSO segments and, as such, I think an ethernet header is prepended to the > TSO segment. (This makes sense, since how else would the hardware know > what ethernet header to use for the TCP segments generated.) > > I think prepending the ethernet header could push the total length > over 64K, given a default if_hw_tsomax == IP_MAXPACKET. And over 64K > isn't going to fit in 32 * 2K (mclbytes) clusters, etc and so forth. > > Anyhow, I think the attached patch will reduce if_hw_tsomax, so that > the result should fit in 32 clusters and avoid EFBIG for this case, > so it might be worth a try? > (I still can't think of why the CSUM_TSO bit isn't set for the printf() > case, but it seems TSO segments could generate EFBIG errors.) > > Maybe worth a try, rick > > > It's so old that I assume the TSO leak that he speaks of has been > > patched, but perhaps not. More things to look into tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAB2_NwAzRyaHpvS=JXuksfsGmuYXJgYvMdD1tubWLgrDX4gdLw>