From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 7 18:16:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28253106567F for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 18:16:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oleksandr@samoylyk.sumy.ua) Received: from mail.telesweet.net (news.telesweet.net [194.110.252.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D859B8FC15 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 18:16:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oleksandr@samoylyk.sumy.ua) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.telesweet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BF710069; Wed, 7 May 2008 21:16:50 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Telesweet Mail Virus Scanner X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44] Received: from [10.0.14.191] (pigeon.telesweet [10.0.14.191]) by mail.telesweet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5378EB81B; Wed, 7 May 2008 21:16:35 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4821F206.10606@samoylyk.sumy.ua> Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 21:16:38 +0300 From: Oleksandr Samoylyk User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <48207C8B.4020509@samoylyk.sumy.ua> <48209BC4.5080602@elischer.org> <20080507040727.GA28983@verio.net> <48215706.8080508@samoylyk.sumy.ua> <4821EF57.9010600@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4821EF57.9010600@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with netgraph 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, 07 May 2008 18:16:54 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > Oleksandr Samoylyk wrote: >> David DeSimone wrote: >>> Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> unfortunatly I've been totally ignoring this thread because it said >>>> "trouble with em" in the topic.. >>>> If you'd said "trouble with mpd" then maybe I'd have looked earlier.. >>> >>> In the poster's defense, the only symptom that started this was this >>> info from ps: >>> >>> PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU >>> COMMAND >>> 29 root 1 -68 - 0K 16K CPU5 5 196:41 100.00% >>> em0 taskq >>> >>> So tracking it down to mpd has been a process of elimination in figuring >>> out why packets absorb so much CPU. >>> >> >> Here is a result of profiling: >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2008-May/017901.html >> > > > 0.00 0.00 16/1643247 igmp_input [833] > 0.03 0.01 614/1643247 icmp_input [272] > 93.07 17.27 1642617/1643247 encap4_input [9] > [10] 49.8 93.10 17.27 1643247 rip_input [10] > 14.26 0.88 600796/749987 _mtx_lock_sleep [21] > 0.16 1.70 1643863/1643863 raw_append [93] > 0.00 0.24 36345/176995 _mtx_unlock_sleep > [114] > 0.01 0.00 1643863/5117962 jailed [278] > 0.00 0.00 1292/1843 m_copym [666] > 0.00 0.00 676/8214484 m_freem [34] > > > > 50% of time in rip_input??? > > that's unexpected.. what is the traffic? more than 20k pps # netstat -I em0 -w 1 input (em0) output packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls 22247 0 10767499 21079 0 13741924 0 21356 0 10535580 20288 0 13014669 0 21871 0 10565622 20586 0 13165147 0 21894 0 10495771 20964 0 13806336 0 21303 0 10496544 19682 0 12659588 0 21643 0 10561207 20140 0 12692946 0 21534 0 10304466 20289 0 13460444 0 ^C > also: > > I see no netgraph in the profile at all. > did you statically compile it all in at compile time? (you should if you > want to see it) > Tried both variants. Now not statically. -- Oleksandr Samoylyk OVS-RIPE