From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 4 19:55:15 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@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 6283CF11; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.69.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC66A1CD7; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s04Jt6FI066439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Jan 2014 23:55:06 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s04Jt6cx066438; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 23:55:06 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 23:55:05 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Michael Tuexen Subject: Re: 10.0-RC1: bad mbuf leak? Message-ID: <20140104195505.GV71033@glebius.int.ru> References: <1387204500.12061.60192349.19EAE1B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <3A115E20-3ADB-49BA-885D-16189B97842B@FreeBSD.org> <20131225133356.GL71033@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: FreeBSD Net , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 19:55:15 -0000 Thanks, Michael! On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 07:47:27PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote: M> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:54:33AM -0600, Mark Felder wrote: M> > M> > finally found some free time today to try to look into this. I was digging into the SVN changelogs of sys/dev/e1000 and couldn't see any obvious changes that I should revert. Instead I went a different route and jumped to HEAD/CURRENT. I'm not seeing the mbufs leaking yet. I'll need another 24 hours to confirm. Hopefully this is a worthwhile clue. I'm a bit surprised nobody else has reported this type of behavior... maybe 10 isn't getting the amount of testing we expect? ...or maybe it's just my lonely, haunted hardware :( M> > M> M> > M> Ok, I feel safe confirming that 10.0-RCs are not stable on my hardware. The mbuf problem went away completely when I jumped to head/current. M> > M> M> > M> Can someone please suggest what patch I can attempt to back out to fix this? I'd like to try to assist in fixing this before 10.0-RELEASE happens or we're going to have some very angry users. M> > M> > Is it possible for you to bisect head from the stable/10 branchpoint up M> > to the current date and narrow down the revisions that introduced (and later M> > fixed?) the leak? M> I did a bisect and M> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/258690 M> resolved the issue on my system: I have just merged this change to head as r260280. Mark, can you pleast confirm that now stable/10 no longer leaks mbufs at your setup? -- Totus tuus, Glebius.