From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 26 16:17:15 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5CC106566B; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:17:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444E08FC12; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:17:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so1096893vbm.13 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:17:14 -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=DmJrNoQ7lNW1rCahwpWk1E7ofFwWK9NDgsAMq2MSoK4=; b=ofymMTte6Aw6TXJZ5Vhg1/KHUc2yLhEeOwXrJm/NKmHhErVbd6W+Zx/NUd25YTuqrO zoebWWtp4dUITmCuJidodyKV2L6120QdpVzYLlCHLOud+L9QLDPDDGWMz5AAVkYxr81U 4aEpOX6uE+d12X5/WlG1PDoSvUWvZJ8L/DWm2fEzJiuhAQFMhXv7dCvEmH5IyREIyRGJ a9xc3/cib6GUVUaGX40pjNem4cfmzOymnWlepTRERjBHOUmZQ1oVMAFPgaye6zC3c1Ps Ep+x9jHknXSa4kOnM58FI7XKCsC/GOuU7zL0tLHbBCwbwfYQEyFqyJsAZTsb4Aa5A1ZP LScg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.207.39 with SMTP id lt7mr562178vec.40.1348676234345; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.68.8 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:17:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201209260955.14417.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201209260955.14417.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:17:14 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Vijay Singh Subject: Re: ixgbe rx & tx locks X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:17:15 -0000 On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:40:58 pm Jack Vogel wrote: > > Ah yes, at one time I was keeping the RX side lock when calling the > stack, > > but then as I recall that had problems, so the code now releases and > > reaquires > > as you can see. It results in some contention but I'm not sure that's > > avoidable. > > > > I've seen some LRO related panics on the 1G driver that may be related to > > this lock release, or that's one theory I have.. > > > > Thanks for the testing Vijay! > > You only have to drop the RX lock around if_input() if you use the same > lock > for both TX and RX (as if_transmit() / if_start() can be invoked while > locks > in the network stack are held). If WITNESS complains, the fix is to only > use > the MTX_NETWORK_LOCK "lock type name" for your transmit ring locks, not for > RX. > > -- > John Baldwin > Oh, hmmm, well I should do some further testing with this then. Thanks for the tip. Jack