On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 11:28 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Niklas Hallqvist wrote:
> > > On 14 Dec 2022, at 07:16, G.R. wrote:
...
> > > Hi Roger,
> > > Just another query of the latest status. It'll be great if you can
> > > share a link to the upstream
On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Niklas Hallqvist wrote:
> > On 14 Dec 2022, at 07:16, G.R. wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:37 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > Roger.
> Hi Roger, any news for the upstream fix? I haven't heard any news
> since...
> The reason I
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 07:16, G.R. wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:37 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> Roger.
Hi Roger, any news for the upstream fix? I haven't heard any news since...
The reason I came back to this thread is that I totally forgot about
this issue and upgraded
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:37 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > Roger.
> > > Hi Roger, any news for the upstream fix? I haven't heard any news since...
> > > The reason I came back to this thread is that I totally forgot about
> > > this issue and upgraded to FreeNAS 13 only to rediscover this
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 07:58:52AM +0100, Paul Leiber wrote:
>
>
> Am 30.10.2022 um 17:36 schrieb G.R.:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 PM Roger Pau Monné
> > wrote:
> > > > So looks like at least the imbalance between two directions are not
> > > > related to your patch.
> > > > Likely the
Am 30.10.2022 um 17:36 schrieb G.R.:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
So looks like at least the imbalance between two directions are not
related to your patch.
Likely the debug build is a bigger contributor to the perf difference
in both directions.
I also tried
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > So looks like at least the imbalance between two directions are not
> > related to your patch.
> > Likely the debug build is a bigger contributor to the perf difference
> > in both directions.
> >
> > I also tried your patch on a release
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 01:14:26AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:33 PM Roger Pau Monné
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 12:05:39AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > > > > > > But seems like this patch is not
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 01:14:26AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:33 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 12:05:39AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > > > > > But seems like this patch is not stable enough yet and has its own
> > > > > > > issue -- memory is not
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:33 PM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 12:05:39AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > > > > But seems like this patch is not stable enough yet and has its own
> > > > > > issue -- memory is not properly released?
> > > > >
> > > > > I know. I've been working on
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 12:05:39AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > > > But seems like this patch is not stable enough yet and has its own
> > > > > issue -- memory is not properly released?
> > > >
> > > > I know. I've been working on improving it this morning and I'm
> > > > attaching an updated version
> > > > But seems like this patch is not stable enough yet and has its own
> > > > issue -- memory is not properly released?
> > >
> > > I know. I've been working on improving it this morning and I'm
> > > attaching an updated version below.
> > >
> > Good news.
> > With this new patch, the NAS
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 10:47:57PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 2:52 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:12:57PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:07 AM Roger Pau Monné
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:27:50AM
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 2:52 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:12:57PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:07 AM Roger Pau Monné
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:27:50AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 05:13:00PM
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:12:57PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:07 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:27:50AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 05:13:00PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is hitting a
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:07 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:27:50AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 05:13:00PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think this is hitting a KASSERT, could you paste the text printed as
> > > > part of the panic
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:27:50AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 05:13:00PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this is hitting a KASSERT, could you paste the text printed as
> > > part of the panic (not just he backtrace)?
> > >
> > > Sorry this is taking a bit of
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 05:13:00PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> >
> > I think this is hitting a KASSERT, could you paste the text printed as
> > part of the panic (not just he backtrace)?
> >
> > Sorry this is taking a bit of time to solve.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> Sorry that I didn't make it clear in the
>
> I think this is hitting a KASSERT, could you paste the text printed as
> part of the panic (not just he backtrace)?
>
> Sorry this is taking a bit of time to solve.
>
> Thanks!
>
Sorry that I didn't make it clear in the first place.
It is the same cross boundary assertion.
Also sorry about
Adding xen-devel back.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 01:44:18AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:05 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 02:06:55AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > > > Thanks. I've raised this on freensd-net for advice [0]. IMO netfront
> > > > > shouldn't
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 02:06:55AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > Thanks. I've raised this on freensd-net for advice [0]. IMO netfront
> > > shouldn't receive an mbuf that crosses a page boundary, but if that's
> > > indeed a legit mbuf I will figure out the best way to handle it.
> > >
> > > I have a
> > Thanks. I've raised this on freensd-net for advice [0]. IMO netfront
> > shouldn't receive an mbuf that crosses a page boundary, but if that's
> > indeed a legit mbuf I will figure out the best way to handle it.
> >
> > I have a clumsy patch (below) that might solve this, if you want to
> >
> > Please find the trace and the kernel CL below.
> > Note, the domU get stuck into a bootloop with this assertion as the
> > situation will come back after domU restart and only dom0 reboot can
> > get the situation back to normal.
> > The trace I captured below is within the boot loop. I
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 11:49:08PM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 3:13 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>
> > Could you build a debug kernel with the following patch applied and
> > give me the trace when it explodes?
>
> Please find the trace and the kernel CL below.
> Note, the domU
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 3:13 AM Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> Could you build a debug kernel with the following patch applied and
> give me the trace when it explodes?
Please find the trace and the kernel CL below.
Note, the domU get stuck into a bootloop with this assertion as the
situation will
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 02:19:03AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> > > I omitted all operational details with the assumption that you are
> > > familiar
> > > with TrueNAS and iSCSI setup.
> >
> > Not really. Ideally I would like a way to reproduce that can be done
> > using iperf, nc or similar simple
> > I omitted all operational details with the assumption that you are familiar
> > with TrueNAS and iSCSI setup.
>
> Not really. Ideally I would like a way to reproduce that can be done
> using iperf, nc or similar simple command line tool, without requiring
> to setup iSCSI.
I think it would be
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 01:13:43AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> First of all, thank you for your quick response, Juergen and Roger.
> I just realized that I run into mail forwarding issue from sourceforge
> mail alias service, and only found the responses when I checked the
> list archive. As a result, I
First of all, thank you for your quick response, Juergen and Roger.
I just realized that I run into mail forwarding issue from sourceforge
mail alias service, and only found the responses when I checked the
list archive. As a result, I have to manually merge Roger's response
to reply...
> > I
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 02:35:56AM +0800, G.R. wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I ran into the following error report in the DOM0 kernel after a recent
> upgrade:
> [ 501.840816] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: Cross page boundary, txp->offset:
> 2872, size: 1460
> [ 501.840828] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: fatal error;
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 2:35 AM G.R. wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I ran into the following error report in the DOM0 kernel after a recent
> upgrade:
> [ 501.840816] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: Cross page boundary, txp->offset:
> 2872, size: 1460
> [ 501.840828] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: fatal error; disabling
On 18.12.21 19:35, G.R. wrote:
Hi all,
I ran into the following error report in the DOM0 kernel after a recent upgrade:
[ 501.840816] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: Cross page boundary, txp->offset:
2872, size: 1460
[ 501.840828] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: fatal error; disabling device
The dom0 network
Hi all,
I ran into the following error report in the DOM0 kernel after a recent upgrade:
[ 501.840816] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: Cross page boundary, txp->offset:
2872, size: 1460
[ 501.840828] vif vif-1-0 vif1.0: fatal error; disabling device
[ 501.841076] xenbr0: port 2(vif1.0) entered disabled
33 matches
Mail list logo
