From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 8 18:35:20 2009 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 479BF106566B for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 18:35:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBB18FC0C for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 18:35:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1614648rvf.43 for ; Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:35:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.132.4 with SMTP id f4mr3136982rvd.211.1234118118271; Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.1.199? (udp016664uds.hawaiiantel.net [72.235.41.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2sm13075605rvb.6.2009.02.08.10.35.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:35:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:34:03 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: Fabian Keil In-Reply-To: <20090208152647.3e4316d1@fabiankeil.de> Message-ID: <20090208083321.M983@desktop> References: <20090131125100.N983@desktop> <20090201160544.4f1961b4@fabiankeil.de> <20090201170550.482bf325@fabiankeil.de> <20090202094226.E983@desktop> <20090208152647.3e4316d1@fabiankeil.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf revision, testers/comments wanted. 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: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:35:20 -0000 On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Fabian Keil wrote: > Jeff Roberson wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Fabian Keil wrote: >> >>> Fabian Keil wrote: >>> >>>> Jeff Roberson wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/mbuf_ref2.diff >>>> >>>>> I have been experimenting with different revisions to the mbuf api to >>>>> improve performance and simplify code. This patch is the first of >>>>> several proposed steps towards those goals. The aim of this patch is >>>>> two fold; >>>> >>>>> I would appreciate testing feedback from varied workloads to make sure >>>>> there are no bugs before I go forward with this. I have tested only >>>>> host oriented networking with a few drivers. It is not anticipated >>>>> that there will be any significant incompatibilities introduced with >>>>> this round but there is always that possibility. >>> >>>> 5) >>>> Finally, I tested the patch on an IBM ThinPad R51. The kernel >>>> hangs on boot, the last messages are (hand transcribed): >>>> >>>> iwi0: mem 0xc0214000-0xc0214fff irq 11 at device 2.0 on pci2 >>>> iwi0: Reserved 0x1000 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at 0xc0214000 >>>> iwi0: could not allocate rx mbuf >>>> iwi0: could not allocate Rx ring >>>> bpfdetach: was not attached >>> >>> Never mind, kernel and user land weren't completely in >>> sync and this might be related to the recent wlan commits. >>> I'll retry with an up-to-date user land. > >> I have updated the patch here: >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/mbuf_ref2.diff >> >> This resolves the !INVARIANTS bug and improves the style as you suggested. > > I run into several system hangs (or maybe panics) yesterday, > mostly with Xorg running so I didn't get any details. > > I got one on the console though. After running a regression > test that opens multiple HTTP connections to the loop back > device, I used rsync to restore some files that were damaged by > an earlier hang. That lead to a page fault in em_start_locked(). > > While I dumped core from the debugger, > savecore didn't find the dump afterwards. > > Anyway, there's a screen shot available at: > http://www.fabiankeil.de/bilder/freebsd/mbuf-patch-page-fault-em_start_locked.jpg Can you open gdb on kernel.debug and tell me what: list *(em_start_locked+0x1e5) outputs? Thanks, Jeff > > Before the patch I didn't see any surprising panics > in quite a while. I reverted the patch for now to > verify that the system is stable without it. > > Fabian >