From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 19 08:41:50 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DC563A3; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE8BD1978; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id o15so1274334qap.10 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:41:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gBtv8ODrVt588et2gqlsuc/aLl8M9tef4HgwDXKcvXs=; b=cn3DGRJnugyDHCQbIDGn1mu2XHblgfi3pmi6bXPFrOZ3thLVjIhCm9pMQAMOZwF1p6 FbhX1YKCWQDkpR8gSTZkZ3wmgCS2/+ATDfd592Lnep1gsk6S5e2cqpKXo0mEqxVuyWnK kYOHw/Ju3FSBv06qirMdYgm0CeKYiG6vZahQI2sX25aMibY1JB0OXAUdYAjuPufnwvXH aNu391W9JKPxZqH+1BPw2EhExggMBGRu573gQ96KI2l5kq4x4VRt9QKFywH8Fn/69R+Q CJ465FqgT/mcbbCYIFIuwLAfUQrqid6hy+XNMlDu/KGsxNnUhmwcj7z0f/wOhrFOn3qi AX4w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.17.232 with SMTP id r8mr426309qed.74.1387442508859; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:41:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.53.200 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:41:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1387204500.12061.60192349.19EAE1B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1387204500.12061.60192349.19EAE1B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:41:48 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TBvukpmcBvRNrNDuV--ZZIqq5Fg Message-ID: Subject: Re: 10.0-RC1: bad mbuf leak? From: Adrian Chadd To: Mark Felder Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Net , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List 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, 19 Dec 2013 08:41:50 -0000 Hm, try reverting just the em code to that from a 10.0-BETA? Just in case something changed there? -a On 16 December 2013 06:35, Mark Felder wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I'm experiencing a bad mbuf leak or something of the sort and I > don't know how to diagnose this further. > > I have a machine at home that is mostly used for transcoding video for > viewing on my TV via the multimedia/plexmediaserver port. This software > runs in a jail and gets the actual files from my NAS via NFSv4. It's a > pretty simple setup and sits idle unless I am watching TV. > > Between the 10.0-BETAs and the 10.0-RC1 did something network related > that could affect mbufs change? Ever since I upgraded this machine to > RC1 it has been "crashing", which I diagnosed as actually being an mbuf > exhaustion. Raising the mbufs brings it back to life, and it does > mention the exhaustion on the system console. > > Last night, for example, I rebooted the machine and it has been sitting > mostly idle. I wake up this morning to see this: > > # vmstat -z > > ITEM SIZE LIMIT USED FREE REQ FAIL SLEEP > mbuf_packet: 256, 6511095, 1023, 1727, 8322474, 0, > 0 > mbuf: 256, 6511095, 2811247, 1563,56000603,121933, > 0 > mbuf_cluster: 2048, 1017358, 2750, 0, 2750,2740, > 0 > mbuf_jumbo_page: 4096, 508679, 0, 152, 2831466, 137, 0 > > # netstat -m > 812270/3290/2815560 mbufs in use (current/cache/total) > 1023/1727/2750/1017358 mbuf clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 1023/1727 mbuf+clusters out of packet secondary zone in use > (current/cache) > 0/152/152/508679 4k (page size) jumbo clusters in use > (current/cache/total/max) > 0/0/0/150719 9k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 0/0/0/84779 16k jumbo clusters in use (current/cache/total/max) > 705113K/4884K/709998K bytes allocated to network (current/cache/total) > 121933/2740/0 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) > 137/0/0 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 > > > The network interface is em(4). > > Things I've tried: > > - restarting all software/services including the jail > - down/up the network interface > > The only thing that works is rebooting. > > Also, the only possible "strange" part of this setup is that the NFS > mounts used by the jail are not direct. They're actually nullfs mounted > into the jail as I want access to them outside of the jail as well. Not > sure if nullfs+nfs could do something this bizarre. > > If anyone has any hints on what I can do to track this down it would be > appreciated. > _______________________________________________ > 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"