10.0-RC1: bad mbuf leak?

[Mark Felder]

On Jan 4, 2014, at 13:55, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

>  Thanks, Michael!
> 
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 07:47:27PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> M> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:54:33AM -0600, Mark Felder wrote:
> M> > M> > finally found some free time today to try to look into this. I was digging into the SVN changelogs of sys/dev/e1000 and couldn't see any obvious changes that I should revert. Instead I went a different route and jumped to HEAD/CURRENT. I'm not seeing the mbufs leaking yet. I'll need another 24 hours to confirm. Hopefully this is a worthwhile clue. I'm a bit surprised nobody else has reported this type of behavior... maybe 10 isn't getting the amount of testing we expect? ...or maybe it's just my lonely, haunted hardware :(
> M> > M> 
> M> > M> Ok, I feel safe confirming that 10.0-RCs are not stable on my hardware. The mbuf problem went away completely when I jumped to head/current.
> M> > M> 
> M> > M> Can someone please suggest what patch I can attempt to back out to fix this? I'd like to try to assist in fixing this before 10.0-RELEASE happens or we're going to have some very angry users.
> M> > 
> M> > Is it possible for you to bisect head from the stable/10 branchpoint up
> M> > to the current date and narrow down the revisions that introduced (and later
> M> > fixed?) the leak?
> M> I did a bisect and
> M> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/258690
> M> resolved the issue on my system:
> 
> I have just merged this change to head as r260280.
> 
> Mark, can you pleast confirm that now stable/10 no longer leaks mbufs
> at your setup?
> 
> -- 
> Totus tuus, Glebius.

I'll build 10-STABLE right away.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/attachments/20140104/6c4a7ab5/attachment.sig>