????????? 30 ??????? 2006 23:23, Mikhail Teterin ???????:> Ok. I rebooted and restarted the heavy traffic dump (DEVICE_POLLING in > kernel, but without polling actialy enabled). The dump got underway, > although the amount of "sys" load was rather high -- way above 70% > most of the time (on a dual-CPU machine). > > Then I tried to enable polling. The following command worked fine: > > (ifconfig em0 down; sleep 1; ifconfig em0 polling; sleep 1; ifconfig em0 > up) & > > Traffic resumed a couple of second later... > > A minute later, ALL TRAFFIC stopped. The machine is, again, unreachable > via network... > > Conclusion: The only way to have a working em-interface is to compile > with DEVICE_POLLING, but without polling enabled... It is slow (very CPU > intensive), but it seems to work...FWIW, enabling polling at boot (via rc.conf) does not change anything either... -mi
On 10/31/06, Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> wrote:> ????????? 30 ??????? 2006 23:23, Mikhail Teterin ???????: > > Ok. I rebooted and restarted the heavy traffic dump (DEVICE_POLLING in > > kernel, but without polling actialy enabled). The dump got underway, > > although the amount of "sys" load was rather high -- way above 70% > > most of the time (on a dual-CPU machine). > > > > Then I tried to enable polling. The following command worked fine: > > > > (ifconfig em0 down; sleep 1; ifconfig em0 polling; sleep 1; ifconfig em0 > > up) & > > > > Traffic resumed a couple of second later... > > > > A minute later, ALL TRAFFIC stopped. The machine is, again, unreachable > > via network... > > > > Conclusion: The only way to have a working em-interface is to compile > > with DEVICE_POLLING, but without polling enabled... It is slow (very CPU > > intensive), but it seems to work... > > FWIW, enabling polling at boot (via rc.conf) does not change anything > either...Scott's question still hasnt been answered, or if so I dont understand it. If everything was working why were you trying to turn on polling? And if the machine is unreachable over the net, what is happening ON the machine at that point, does it emit any useful information? Jack
Actually, it stalls even with polling disabled. It just takes A LOT longer, as I just found out. Instead of minutes, it takes hours of heavey traffict to stall, but it still happens. Pressing a key still wakes it up... -mi
On 10/31/06, Mikhail Teterin <Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> wrote:> Actually, it stalls even with polling disabled. It just takes A LOT longer, as > I just found out. > > Instead of minutes, it takes hours of heavey traffict to stall, but it still > happens. Pressing a key still wakes it up... > > -mi >This is fairly bizarre :) I think I can say pretty safely that this is NOT an em driver issue, its a scheduler problem of some sort. Jack
On 10/31/06, Joerg Pernfuss <elessar@bsdforen.de> wrote:> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:46:10 -0800 > "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So like : > > > > options _KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING # POSIX P1003_1B real-time > > extensions > > > > Looks like a special option that most probably dont have [...] > > This option is in GENERIC, so it is something most people probably > have.Opps, guess I should have checked first :) I still think it looks like some kind of scheduler issue going on here, so maybe this is something to check. Jack
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 20:41, Jack Vogel wrote: = I still think it looks like some kind of scheduler issue going on = here, so maybe this is something to check. Why would the scheduler affect the "sys" component of the load (which shoots to the sky before the machine drops of the network)? I thought, it only matters for user-space programs (the order in which they run)... Also, if this were a scheduler problem, why would pressing Shift on the keyboard wake everything up? -mi
Mikhail Teterin wrote:> Actually, it stalls even with polling disabled. It just takes A LOT > longer, as I just found out. > > Instead of minutes, it takes hours of heavey traffict to stall, but > it still happens. Pressing a key still wakes it up...Sounds like apm or something making the machine go to sleep? Steve ===============================================This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.
?????? 01 ???????? 2006 08:44, Steven Hartland ???????:> > Actually, it stalls even with polling disabled. It just takes A LOT > > longer, as I just found out. > > > > Instead of minutes, it takes hours of heavey traffict to stall, but > > it still happens. Pressing a key still wakes it up... > > Sounds like apm or something making the machine go to sleep?Why would not that happen, when the machine is idle?.. -mi
Mikhail Teterin wrote:> Why would the scheduler affect the "sys" component of the load (which > shoots to the sky before the machine drops of the network)? I thought, > it only matters for user-space programs (the order in which they run)...It also schedules internal kernel threads (such as device driver interrupt threads, etc.)