Crashes on X7SPE-HF with em
Jack Vogel
jfvogel at gmail.com
Fri Aug 27 16:59:51 UTC 2010
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Philipp Wuensche <cryx-freebsd at h3q.com>wrote:
> Jack Vogel wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
> > <freebsd at jdc.parodius.com <mailto:freebsd at jdc.parodius.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:56:48PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
> > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > CC'ing Jack Vogel of Intel and Yong-Hyeon PYUN who might have
> some
> > > > ideas. OP's backtrace is here:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-August/058425.html
> > > >
> > > > Philipp, can you please provide the following output?
> > > >
> > > > * dmesg | egrep 'em[0-9]'
> > >
> > > em0: <Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 7.0.5> port
> > 0xdc00-0xdc1f mem
> > > 0xfe9e0000-0xfe9fffff,0xfe9dc000-0xfe9dffff irq 16 at device 0.0
> > on pci2
> > > em0: Using MSI interrupt
> > > em0: [FILTER]
> > > em0: Ethernet address: 00:25:90:04:6e:fa
> > > em1: <Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 7.0.5> port
> > 0xec00-0xec1f mem
> > > 0xfeae0000-0xfeafffff,0xfeadc000-0xfeadffff irq 17 at device 0.0
> > on pci3
> > > em1: Using MSI interrupt
> > > em1: [FILTER]
> > > em1: Ethernet address: 00:25:90:04:6e:fb
> > >
> > > > * uname -a (you can XXX out the machine name if need be)
> > >
> > > FreeBSD XXX 8.1-STABLE FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #2: Wed Aug 25 10:38:50
> CEST
> > > 2010 root at XXX:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/XXX amd64
> > >
> > > Date of source is Aug 17 14:09 CEST 2010. It happend with
> 8.1-RELEASE
> > > too, I can go back to RELEASE or any SVN revision you would like,
> > if it
> > > is helping in any way.
> > >
> > > Kernel-config:
> > >
> > > include GENERIC
> > >
> > > ident XXX
> > >
> > > options IPSEC
> > >
> > > options DEVICE_POLLING
> > > options ACCEPT_FILTER_HTTP
> > >
> > > options ALTQ
> > >
> > > options ALTQ_CBQ
> > > options ALTQ_RED
> > > options ALTQ_RIO
> > > options ALTQ_HFSC
> > > options ALTQ_PRIQ
> > >
> > > device crypto
> > > device enc
> > >
> > >
> > > > * pciconf -lvc (only include the em(4) items please)
> > >
> > > em0 at pci0:2:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x060a15d9
> > chip=0x10d38086 rev=0x00
> > > hdr=0x00
> > > vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
> > > device = 'Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller
> (82574L)'
> > > class = network
> > > subclass = ethernet
> > > cap 01[c8] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0
> > > cap 05[d0] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit enabled with 1
> message
> > > cap 10[e0] = PCI-Express 1 endpoint max data 128(256) link
> x1(x1)
> > > cap 11[a0] = MSI-X supports 5 messages in map 0x1c
> > > em1 at pci0:3:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x060a15d9
> > chip=0x10d38086 rev=0x00
> > > hdr=0x00
> > > vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
> > > device = 'Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller
> (82574L)'
> > > class = network
> > > subclass = ethernet
> > > cap 01[c8] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0
> > > cap 05[d0] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit enabled with 1
> message
> > > cap 10[e0] = PCI-Express 1 endpoint max data 128(256) link
> x1(x1)
> > > cap 11[a0] = MSI-X supports 5 messages in map 0x1c
> > >
> > > > * vmstat -i
> > >
> > > interrupt total rate
> > > irq1: atkbd0 9 0
> > > cpu0: timer 36544552 1994
> > > irq256: em0 3801 0
> > > irq257: em1 32963909 1799
> > > irq258: ahci0 175662 9
> > > cpu1: timer 36543525 1994
> > > cpu2: timer 36543525 1994
> > > cpu3: timer 36543525 1994
> > > Total 179318508 9786
> > >
> > > There is an shared IPMI interface on em0, but the interface is not
> > used
> > > by FreeBSD. em1 is used by four VLANs. Polling is only in the
> > > Kernelconfig, not activated on the devices.
> >
> > So much complexity here. Tracking this down might be difficult.
> >
> > One thing that does concern me is the interrupt rate for em1. Jack
> et
> > al, is this normal? I don't see this behaviour on my 8.x systems
> with
> > em(4) driver 7.0.5, but my systems all use 82573E and 82573L, and
> don't
> > have MSI-X support.
> >
> >
> > He is only using one vector anyway it seems, so MSIX isnt making things
> > much more complex than your 573.
> >
> > The interrupt rate seems high but I'm not sure if its abnormal for a busy
> > interface.
> >
> > I tend to agree with Yongari, let's eliminate all the complicating
> factors
> > like IPSEC and ALTQ and see if it still occurs.
>
> Crashed couply of minutes ago, the kernel without ALTQ and IPSEC is now
> running.
>
Does this mean the crash happened without IPSEC and ALTQ or it just now
started running that kernel??
Jack
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list