On 27.1.2024. 21:01, Marcus Glocker wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 08:01:09AM +0100, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: > >> On 26.1.2024. 21:56, Marcus Glocker wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:41:49AM +0100, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: >>> >>>> I've manage to reproduce TSO em problem on anoter setup, unfortunatly >>>> production. >>>> >>>> Setup is very simple >>>> >>>> em0 - carp <- uplink >>>> em1 - pfsync >>>> ix1 - vlans - carp >>> Would it be possible that you also share an "ifconfig -a hwfeatures" of >>> that box? You can mask the IPs if it's too sensitive. >>> >>> I still try to reproduce the issue here, and for now I can't. >>> Maybe in your full ifconfig output I can see some specifics about your >>> configuration, which makes it more likely to reproduce the issue here. >>> >> Hi, >> >> here's ifconfig from second setup where watchdog is triggered much faster. >> Originally in this setup uplink is ix0, I've change that to em0 to see >> would the problem be same as in other setup and it is, and that's good >> because this is pfsync setup for students and I can do whatever I want >> with it :) > Thanks. > > But still, I can do whatever I want on my em(4) I210 box, carp(4), > vlan(4), creating a lot of traffic, I can't reproduce the watchdog which > you are seeing :-( I'm not sure if this is something related to your > I350. > > Also, I can't understand why the watchdog still triggers when you disable > TSO by setting net.inet.tcp.tso=0. > > Just to rule out that you're receiving a MAXMCLBYTES (65536) packet, > while EM_TSO_SIZE (65535) is one byte less, can you please apply this > diff to -current and test it? I doubt it will make a difference, but > I'm running a bit out of ideas here.
Hi, with this diff I'm still getting em watchdog Jan 28 00:14:12 bcbnfw1 /bsd: em0: watchdog: head 120 tail 185 TDH 185 TDT 120
