On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:25:18PM +0200, Julien Charbon wrote: > > Hi Slawa, > > On 9/21/16 9:51 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:11:24AM +0200, Julien Charbon wrote: > >> You can also use Dtrace and lockstat (especially with the lockstat -s > >> option): > >> > >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/DTrace/One-Liners#Kernel_Locks > >> https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=lockstat&manpath=FreeBSD+11.0-RELEASE > >> > >> But I am less familiar with Dtrace/lockstat tools. > > > > I am still use old kernel and got lockdown again. > > Try using lockstat (I am save more output), interesting may be next: > > > > R/W writer spin on writer: 190019 events in 1.070 seconds (177571 > > events/sec) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Count indv cuml rcnt nsec Lock Caller > > > > 140839 74% 74% 0.00 24659 tcpinp tcp_tw_2msl_scan+0xc6 > > > > > > nsec ------ Time Distribution ------ count Stack > > > > 4096 | 913 tcp_twstart+0xa3 > > > > 8192 |@@@@@@@@@@@@ 58191 tcp_do_segment+0x201f > > > > 16384 |@@@@@@ 29594 tcp_input+0xe1c > > > > 32768 |@@@@ 23447 ip_input+0x15f > > > > 65536 |@@@ 16197 > > 131072 |@ 8674 > > 262144 | 3358 > > 524288 | 456 > > 1048576 | 9 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Count indv cuml rcnt nsec Lock Caller > > > > 49180 26% 100% 0.00 15929 tcpinp tcp_tw_2msl_scan+0xc6 > > > > > > nsec ------ Time Distribution ------ count Stack > > > > 4096 | 157 pfslowtimo+0x54 > > > > 8192 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 24796 > > softclock_call_cc+0x179 > > 16384 |@@@@@@ 11223 softclock+0x44 > > > > 32768 |@@@@ 7426 > > intr_event_execute_handlers+0x95 > > 65536 |@@ 3918 > > 131072 | 1363 > > 262144 | 278 > > 524288 | 19 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is interesting, it seems that you have two call paths competing > for INP locks here: > > - pfslowtimo()/tcp_tw_2msl_scan(reuse=0) and > > - tcp_input()/tcp_twstart()/tcp_tw_2msl_scan(reuse=1)
I think same. > These paths can indeed compete for the same INP lock, as both > tcp_tw_2msl_scan() calls always start with the first inp found in > twq_2msl list. But in both cases, this first inp should be quickly used > and its lock released anyway, thus that could explain your situation it > that the TCP stack is doing that all the time, for example: > > - Let say that you are running out completely and constantly of tcptw, > and then all connections transitioning to TIME_WAIT state are competing > with the TIME_WAIT timeout scan that tries to free all the expired > tcptw. If the stack is doing that all the time, it can appear like > "live" locked. > > This is just an hypothesis and as usual might be a red herring. > Anyway, could you run: > > $ vmstat -z | head -2; vmstat -z | grep -E 'tcp|sock' ITEM SIZE LIMIT USED FREE REQ FAIL SLEEP socket: 864, 4192664, 18604, 25348,49276158, 0, 0 tcp_inpcb: 464, 4192664, 34226, 18702,49250593, 0, 0 tcpcb: 1040, 4192665, 18424, 18953,49250593, 0, 0 tcptw: 88, 16425, 15802, 623,14526919, 8, 0 tcpreass: 40, 32800, 15, 2285, 632381, 0, 0 In normal case tcptw is about 16425/600/900 And after `sysctl -a | grep tcp` system stuck on serial console and I am reset it. > Ideally, once when everything is ok, and once when you have the issue > to see the differences (if any). > > If it appears your are quite low in tcptw, and if you have enough > memory, could you try increase the tcptw limit using sysctl I think this is not eliminate stuck, just may do it less frequency > net.inet.tcp.maxtcptw? And actually see if it improve (or not) your > performance. I am already play with net.inet.tcp.maxtcptw and it not affect performance. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"