Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:07:40 -0700 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MSI-X + em(4) = Refresh mbufs: hdr dmamap load failure - 22 Message-ID: <CAFOYbc=sYofj=phGu5M%2BSDSyorq5VPFKsVUpBVYquFtrfALAyQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACVs6=9rTNAjEEdy7sBNEWPtoTdkx7eifZisQF5JTESAorQeJQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACVs6=9rTNAjEEdy7sBNEWPtoTdkx7eifZisQF5JTESAorQeJQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You have header split on?? I've not seen this before so something odd is going on. Jack On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org> wrote= : > All, > > On both stable/9 and trunk I see that with one of either the 82571EB > or 82574L I am flooded with messages in the form of: > > Refresh mbufs: hdr dmamap load failure - 22 > > If I disable msix, then the messages go away. I am not sure why msix > vs. non-msix would matter in this case unless in the msix case there's > some kind of case of spurious interrupts causing em_rxeof to be called > without any packets available. If that happens then perhaps > e1000_rx_unrefreshed() is called when no buffers have been processed > and then em_refresh_mbufs wrongly refreshes the whole ring? > > This seems like it would be a problem because the > bus_dmamap_load_mbuf_sg code is called unconditionally, even when a > new mbuf isn't being allocated. In that case, the mapping already > exists. Wouldn't it be necessary to unload and then reload the mbuf? > So either it's a bug that em_refresh_mbufs is being called at all, or > it's naively reusing mbufs in a way that actually guarantees an error, > right? Also, in the case where it frees, only m_free is called =97 is > there never a case where that should be an m_freem? I can imagine > some, but they are likely impossible with the receive path of the > driver. (I don't know for sure because the receive path and the mbuf > refresh code keep changing and I've been unable to keep up.) > > I don't know which part it is, of course, because I don't know what > port it's coming from. Like three other printfs in the driver where > which device is being used matters tremendously, it uses a bare printf > and not a device_printf. I could modify the driver, but for now > disabling msix is easier than continuing to load new kernels to try to > debug the problem. > > Is anyone else seeing this? Has anyone further investigated the > problem? Is there a patch floating around and I just haven't found > the right search terms? > > Thanks in advance, > Juli. > > PS: Yes, I know this is kind of a crappy bug report, sorry. I've had > a limited amount of time to investigate so far, and don't want to > delay reporting it until I am able to get more time with the > problematic hardware. > _______________________________________________ > 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" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFOYbc=sYofj=phGu5M%2BSDSyorq5VPFKsVUpBVYquFtrfALAyQ>