Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:58:49 -0500
At 08:47 PM 11/12/2006, Scott Long wrote:
2. Try compiling in WITNESS and running the test as before, then breakIt was in that kernel already
into the debugger as before. Run 'show locks'. I'm not sure how
fruitful this will be, WITNESS might make it unbearably slow.
So you're seeing the livelock under load while also having WITNESS enabled? Have you tried your test without WITNESS? What about INVARIANTS?
Sorry, by it was in the kernel already, it was from last nights tests where you asked me to break into the debugger to see what was going on. I figured you would want it in there. My original tests were all without WITNESS and INVARIANTS and they were showing the same behaviour (locking up on the management interface) with and without WITNESS and INVARIANTS
Removing ADAPTIVE_GIANT seems to be very key in this! If I remove it, the box no longer locks up under a high packet rate! Its still a little sluggish on the bge OOB interface, but its not totally locking up like before
Running ifstat -b from the management interface, here is the traffic pattern first with one blast running and then the second kicks in. The Kbps/s out on em1 drops in half, but the box is still responsive and bge1... Certainly responsive enough to see the output of ifstat.
218028.4 0.00 0.00 216389.9 0.47 1.17
218971.2 0.00 0.00 217123.1 0.94 2.34
217754.7 0.00 0.00 215677.2 0.94 1.17
215763.1 0.00 0.00 214578.5 0.47 1.17
217850.3 0.00 0.00 216138.7 1.40 2.34
217668.0 0.00 0.00 215888.3 0.47 1.17
em0 em1 bge1
Kbps in Kbps out Kbps in Kbps out Kbps in Kbps out
217382.3 0.00 0.00 216293.8 1.26 1.59
218247.9 118916.5 234167.3 124972.1 0.47 2.17
215973.4 220459.9 393350.0 54875.64 1.40 2.34
217697.7 210984.5 398543.3 58165.20 0.94 3.09
217183.6 200424.9 399096.5 61845.74 0.94 1.17
217788.7 221212.9 400129.8 53716.38 0.47 1.17
217040.0 204934.2 396628.7 61247.34 1.40 2.34
217105.9 201295.5 399274.1 61710.76 0.94 3.09
215605.6 225012.4 397533.5 53237.31 0.94 1.17
217933.3 200346.4 395949.3 62734.52 0.47 1.17
216783.7 205114.1 395923.0 61042.17 0.94 1.17
217885.7 88513.41 159056.4 151418.9 0.47 1.17
216927.2 0.00 0.00 215450.4 0.94 1.17
217454.1 0.00 0.00 215466.6 0.47 1.17
216810.6 0.00 0.00 215564.2 1.40 1.17
217608.3 0.00 0.00 216061.8 0.47 1.17
217452.8 0.00 0.00 215627.1 0.94 1.17
217185.0 0.00 0.00 216079.7 0.47 1.17
However, if I turn on fastforwarding, its back to the old behavior with it locking up. This was with the stock driver. I will try the same test with
#define EM_FAST_INTR 1
as well as taking out the nfs option from the kernel driver. Anything else to tune with ?
---Mike
Scott
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Scott Long
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- References:
- Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Jack Vogel
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Scott Long
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Jack Vogel
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Scott Long
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Scott Long
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Mike Tancsa
- Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- From: Scott Long
- Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- Prev by Date: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- Next by Date: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- Previous by thread: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- Next by thread: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading