From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 20 05:08:16 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D9616A417 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:08:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@parodius.com) Received: from mx01.sc1.parodius.com (mx01.sc1.parodius.com [72.20.106.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D605F13C45D for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:08:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@parodius.com) Received: by mx01.sc1.parodius.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6812C1CC02E; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:08:16 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Josh Carroll Message-ID: <20071020050816.GA75590@eos.sc1.parodius.com> Mail-Followup-To: Josh Carroll , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <8cb6106e0710192020r1b3f3948p41b1b88018a146c6@mail.gmail.com> <8cb6106e0710192024q6292327byf49bce3417e3ec69@mail.gmail.com> <20071020040723.GB71660@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <8cb6106e0710192110q13d28949j15ce3947bbec4c01@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0710192110q13d28949j15ce3947bbec4c01@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em lockups during heavy network I/O on RELENG_7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 20 Oct 2007 05:08:17 -0000 On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 12:10:30AM -0400, Josh Carroll wrote: > > There's another thread on this issue, although that thread seems to > > apply to a specific version (of em(4) code, or of NIC PROM revision -- I > > don't know, the dmesg output is somewhat ambiguous). > > Ah sorry, I did see that thread, but did notice the em version was > different, and that it didn't appear to be causing a hard lock of the > machine. I suppose it could be related, though. Should I track/post to > that thread, instead? Sorry if this is a duplicate issue, but it > seemed the symptoms were different. My apologies -- after being educated (the version number shown in the device output is actually the driver version and not a PROM version), your issue here is likely separate. The driver revision shown here is 6.5.3. Jack should be able to help track this down though... (I like how I'm volunteering him for more work, haha. :-) ) -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |