From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 30 17:09:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2E75C1E for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ipfw.ru (mail.ipfw.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:120:6141::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A45B1AF7 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [2a02:6b8:0:401:222:4dff:fe50:cd2f] (helo=ptichko.yndx.net) by mail.ipfw.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1XYwvy-0005el-1t; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:53:38 +0400 Message-ID: <542AE376.6000003@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:08:06 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rumen Telbizov Subject: Re: 10.1-BETA2 possible kernel memory leak in routing table References: <542AAA3C.1080803@ipfw.ru> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:09:08 -0000 On 30.09.2014 20:52, Rumen Telbizov wrote: > Hello, > > >> Can you show route -Arn output ? >> > # route -Arn > route: illegal option -- A > route: usage: route [-46dnqtv] command [[modifiers] args] Sorry. That meant to be "route -Arn". It would be even better if you show something like "route -Arn ; sleep 10; route -Arn" > > Can you disable carp and see if this changes anything? > Unfortunately no. It is live and serving traffic. I will be rebuilding the > backup to 10 as well and testing things today. Hopefully it will give me a > bit more visibility. Ok. Are there any (relevant) messages floating inside route socket? e.g does "route -n monitor" shows a lot of output? > > > >> # Enable better lacp/lagg transmit distribution >>> net.link.lagg.default_use_flowid=0 >>> >> Are you sure this is really "better" ? >> > Absolutely. I have a lagg (lacp) interface between ix0 and ix1 and without > this option outgoing traffic (transmits) were being sent only via one of > the interfaces - ix0. With this option I have proper balancing on the Very strange. Do you have "normal" ipv4/ipv6 traffic? (e.g. not tunneled, not ipsec, not all-fragmented, etc?) ixgbe marks all packets by received queue id number, and queue 0 is always selected for "corner case" traffic. I see more or less equal traffic distribution in you original post, so this looks very strange for me. Can you show "sysctl dev.ix" output? (and any ixgbe tunables set if any)? > outgoing traffic. > > Thank you,