From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 20 11:57:34 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B73CE9C8;
 Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:57:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de
 [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2CD1CE0;
 Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:57:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.200] (p508F063C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.143.6.60])
 (Authenticated sender: macmic)
 by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356F41C0C0693;
 Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:57:31 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: 10.0-RC1: bad mbuf leak?
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=D+Tq4SNJsEK5a4Aw9as34m31hutU+wQ1GqqaD2a3zVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:57:29 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C88BC646-2DD9-4A89-98F3-926C91953DDA@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <1387204500.12061.60192349.19EAE1B4@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAJ-VmonGE2=vmFOnCtLVLyNp0=F+NUd6OdU6=rROH_PWkyXSDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <FB1A916C-7ABA-4FFD-A79A-CF757E83F6E8@lurchi.franken.de>
 <CAJ-Vmo=D+Tq4SNJsEK5a4Aw9as34m31hutU+wQ1GqqaD2a3zVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>,
 Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:57:34 -0000

On Dec 19, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 19 December 2013 01:09, Michael Tuexen
> <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hm, try reverting just the em code to that from a 10.0-BETA? Just in
>>> case something changed there?
>> I saw a similar behaviour without the patches we are discussing (regarding
>> ignoring the error).
> 
> Hm. Why was that?
I don't know. I have some igb devices nailed down to 100MBit, but I haven't
tested. Since this problem also triggered a problem in SCTP, I looked at
that first and came up with a patch for the drivers to have correctly
in case of drops. However, with my fixes, the mbuf problems went away...

I can revert my patches and try to figure you what is going on... The mbufs
denied counter was already large after a reboot of the system, without any
traffic (SCTP or anything else).

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 
> -a
>