Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:42:08 +0200 From: "Kristof Provost" <kp@FreeBSD.org> To: d@delphij.net Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: if_bridge performance improvements Message-ID: <544E27A6-D799-4AF3-B4B7-1E68D5D50698@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8634ec5c-a509-d2dd-8f5c-31efcbd50340@delphij.net> References: <5377E42E-4C01-4BCC-B934-011AC3448B54@FreeBSD.org> <8e0e2bf1-27cd-1a99-b266-c7223255942f@delphij.net> <BF81FE6C-D4F4-43BA-9DE1-2C6A28A65AF3@FreeBSD.org> <8634ec5c-a509-d2dd-8f5c-31efcbd50340@delphij.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 22 Apr 2020, at 18:15, Xin Li wrote: > On 4/22/20 01:45, Kristof Provost wrote: >> On 22 Apr 2020, at 10:20, Xin Li wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4/14/20 02:51, Kristof Provost wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks to support from The FreeBSD Foundation I’ve been able to >>>> work on >>>> improving the throughput of if_bridge. >>>> It changes the (data path) locking to use the NET_EPOCH >>>> infrastructure. >>>> Benchmarking shows substantial improvements (x5 in test setups). >>>> >>>> This work is ready for wider testing now. >>>> >>>> It’s under review here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24250 >>>> >>>> Patch for CURRENT: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24250?download=true >>>> Patches for stable/12: >>>> https://people.freebsd.org/~kp/if_bridge/stable_12/ >>>> >>>> I’m not currently aware of any panics or issues resulting from >>>> these >>>> patches. >>> >>> I have observed the following panic with latest stable/12 after >>> applying >>> the stable_12 patchset, it appears like a race condition related >>> NULL >>> pointer deference, but I haven't took a deeper look yet. >>> >>> The box have 7 igb(4) NICs, with several bridge and VLAN configured >>> acting as a router. Please let me know if you need additional >>> information; I can try -CURRENT as well, but it would take some time >>> as >>> the box is relatively slow (it's a ZFS based system so I can create >>> a >>> separate boot environment for -CURRENT if needed, but that would >>> take >>> some time as I might have to upgrade the packages, should there be >>> any >>> ABI breakages). >>> >> Thanks for the report. I don’t immediately see how this could >> happen. >> >> Are you running an L2 firewall on that bridge by any chance? An >> earlier >> version of the patch had issues with a stray unlock in that code >> path. > > I don't think I have a L2 firewall (I assume means filtering based on > MAC address like what can be done with e.g. ipfw? The bridges were > created on vlan interfaces though, do they count as L2 firewall?), the > system is using pf with a few NAT rules: > That backtrace looks identical to the one Peter reported, up to and including the offset in the bridge_input() function. Given that there’s no likely way to end up with a NULL mutex either I have to assume that it’s a case of trying to unlock a locked mutex, and the most likely reason is that you ran into the same problem Peter ran into. The current version of the patch should resolve it. Best regards, Kristofhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?544E27A6-D799-4AF3-B4B7-1E68D5D50698>