From owner-freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Fri Jun 10 15:01:48 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B482B7194F for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C39710C1 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u5AF1mF4021060 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:01:48 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 207446] Hang bringing up vtnet(4) on >8 cpu GCE VMs Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:01:48 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.3-BETA2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: wac@google.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bryanv@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:48:27 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:01:48 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D207446 --- Comment #9 from Andy Carrel --- I definitely prefer the requested vs. max terminology in your patch. Ultimately we just need to make sure that the initialization here... > 891 if (sc->vtnet_flags & VTNET_FLAG_CTRL_VQ) { > 892 VQ_ALLOC_INFO_INIT(&info[idx], 0, NULL, NULL, > 893 &sc->vtnet_ctrl_vq, "%s ctrl", device_get_nameun= it(dev)); > 894 } ...is using idx that is equal to the max_vq_pairs number provided by the ho= st, rather than a number that is limited by factors we take into account in the guest. I'll try to build and test this weekend. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=