On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 06:16:07PM -0400, Joe Clarke wrote:> About two weeks ago, I upgraded from the latest 11-stable to the latest 12-stable. After that, I periodically see the network throughput come to a near standstill. This FreeBSD machine is an ESXi VM with two interfaces. It acts as a router. It uses vmxnet3 interfaces for both LAN and WAN. It runs ipfw with in-kernel NAT. The LAN side uses a bridge with vmx0 and a tap0 L2 VPN interface. My LAN side uses an MTU of 9000, and my vmx1 (WAN side) uses the default 1500. > > Besides seeing massive packet loss and huge latency (~ 200 ms for on-LAN ping times), I know the problem has occurred because my lldpd reports: > > Jul 26 15:47:03 namale lldpd[1126]: frame too short for tlv received on bridge0 > > And if I turn on ipfw verbose messages, I see tons of: > > Jul 26 16:02:23 namale kernel: ipfw: pullup failed > > This leads to me to believe packets are being corrupted on ingress. I?ve applied all the recent iflib changes, but the problem persists. What causes it, I don?t know. > > The only thing that changed (and yes, it?s a big one) is I upgraded to 12-stable. Meaning, the rest of the network infra and topology has remained the same. This did not happen at all in 11-stable. > > I?m open to suggestions.There are some fixes for vmx not present in stable/12 (yet). I did a merge of a number of outstanding revisions. Would you be able to test the patch? I haven't observed any problems with it on a host using igb, but I have no ability to test vmx at the moment. https://people.freebsd.org/~markj/patches/iflib-stable12.diff
> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 06:16:07PM -0400, Joe Clarke wrote: >> About two weeks ago, I upgraded from the latest 11-stable to the latest 12-stable. After that, I periodically see the network throughput come to a near standstill. This FreeBSD machine is an ESXi VM with two interfaces. It acts as a router. It uses vmxnet3 interfaces for both LAN and WAN. It runs ipfw with in-kernel NAT. The LAN side uses a bridge with vmx0 and a tap0 L2 VPN interface. My LAN side uses an MTU of 9000, and my vmx1 (WAN side) uses the default 1500. >> >> Besides seeing massive packet loss and huge latency (~ 200 ms for on-LAN ping times), I know the problem has occurred because my lldpd reports: >> >> Jul 26 15:47:03 namale lldpd[1126]: frame too short for tlv received on bridge0 >> >> And if I turn on ipfw verbose messages, I see tons of: >> >> Jul 26 16:02:23 namale kernel: ipfw: pullup failed >> >> This leads to me to believe packets are being corrupted on ingress. I?ve applied all the recent iflib changes, but the problem persists. What causes it, I don?t know. >> >> The only thing that changed (and yes, it?s a big one) is I upgraded to 12-stable. Meaning, the rest of the network infra and topology has remained the same. This did not happen at all in 11-stable. >> >> I?m open to suggestions. > > There are some fixes for vmx not present in stable/12 (yet). I did a > merge of a number of outstanding revisions. Would you be able to test > the patch? I haven't observed any problems with it on a host using igb, > but I have no ability to test vmx at the moment.I?m down to test anything. I did notice quite a few vmxnet3 changes around performance that appealed to me. I tried a few of them on my last kernel. That took much longer to exhibit the problem, but eventually did. I can tell you I don?t have all of these patches in, though. I?ll build with this diff and start running it now. I?ll let you know how it goes. Thanks! Joe --- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:41, Joe Clarke <jclarke at marcuscom.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 27, 2020, at 15:01, Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 06:16:07PM -0400, Joe Clarke wrote: >>> About two weeks ago, I upgraded from the latest 11-stable to the latest 12-stable. After that, I periodically see the network throughput come to a near standstill. This FreeBSD machine is an ESXi VM with two interfaces. It acts as a router. It uses vmxnet3 interfaces for both LAN and WAN. It runs ipfw with in-kernel NAT. The LAN side uses a bridge with vmx0 and a tap0 L2 VPN interface. My LAN side uses an MTU of 9000, and my vmx1 (WAN side) uses the default 1500. >>> >>> Besides seeing massive packet loss and huge latency (~ 200 ms for on-LAN ping times), I know the problem has occurred because my lldpd reports: >>> >>> Jul 26 15:47:03 namale lldpd[1126]: frame too short for tlv received on bridge0 >>> >>> And if I turn on ipfw verbose messages, I see tons of: >>> >>> Jul 26 16:02:23 namale kernel: ipfw: pullup failed >>> >>> This leads to me to believe packets are being corrupted on ingress. I?ve applied all the recent iflib changes, but the problem persists. What causes it, I don?t know. >>> >>> The only thing that changed (and yes, it?s a big one) is I upgraded to 12-stable. Meaning, the rest of the network infra and topology has remained the same. This did not happen at all in 11-stable. >>> >>> I?m open to suggestions. >> >> There are some fixes for vmx not present in stable/12 (yet). I did a >> merge of a number of outstanding revisions. Would you be able to test >> the patch? I haven't observed any problems with it on a host using igb, >> but I have no ability to test vmx at the moment. > > I?m down to test anything. I did notice quite a few vmxnet3 changes around performance that appealed to me. I tried a few of them on my last kernel. That took much longer to exhibit the problem, but eventually did. > > I can tell you I don?t have all of these patches in, though. I?ll build with this diff and start running it now. I?ll let you know how it goes.So it?s been just over a week of runtime with this full patch set. I have seen no further issues with ingress packet ?truncation?, and performance has been what I expect. I?m going to keep running, but I think this seems like a good set to MFC. Thanks again for your help. Joe --- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc