Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 18:49:24 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Conrad Meyer <cem@FreeBSD.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r326758 - in head/sys/i386: conf include Message-ID: <5A326544.1030706@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <5A3261BD.5050404@grosbein.net> References: <201712110432.vBB4WbnE021090@repo.freebsd.org> <20171211091943.GF2272@kib.kiev.ua> <5A2E5D44.9030904@grosbein.net> <4a9c76c9-8063-9420-b198-14487b089840@FreeBSD.org> <5A30378A.3040609@grosbein.net> <e2c426c3-41ed-2dd8-c5d4-15c60d8f7303@FreeBSD.org> <5A3261BD.5050404@grosbein.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 14.12.2017 18:34, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 13.12.2017 04:55, John Baldwin wrote: >> On 12/12/17 3:09 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >>> On 13.12.2017 02:32, John Baldwin wrote: >>> >>>> Certainly for MIPS I have found that compiling with clang >>>> instead of gcc for mips64 gives a kernel that panics for stack overflow for any >>>> use of NFS. It might be that this is due to something MIPS-specific, but it >>>> might be worthwhile retesting with kstack_pages=2 and building the kernel >>>> with CROSS_TOOLCHAIN=i386-gcc after installing the appropriate package. >>> >>> You may want to check NFS code that uses stack heavily. >>> Here are numbers for i386 (bytes-on-stack, module, what function): >>> >>> 1344 nfs_nfsdport.o <nfssvc_nfsd>: >>> 1152 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_lockt>: >>> 1128 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_lock>: >>> 952 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_rename>: >>> 664 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_open>: >>> 640 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_link>: >>> 624 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_create>: >>> 608 nfs_nfsdserv.o <nfsrvd_mknod>: >>> 600 nfs_clvfsops.o <nfs_mount>: >> >> My point is that you should compare gcc with clang as 10.x switched to >> clang and that may be a factor in the stack overflows beginning with 10.x. > > I think thats's NFS code who is guilty. You can see example of amd64 (sic!) kstack exhaustion > due to 40+ frames deep call chain here: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2017-July/087429.html Final post in the thread describes amd64 crash with kstack_pages=5 due to 75 frames: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2017-July/087477.html He increased kstack_pages upto 6 and stopped posting, as it obviously helped him finally. By the way, I finally realised why I do not have KVA problems with my i386 hosts: I run all of them (no PAE) with options KVA_PAGES=512 (2GB) at least and even 768 (3GB) in case of ZFS instead of default 256 (1GB) to make it stable. Tell me more of untweaked FreeBSD stability...home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A326544.1030706>