On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:55:12PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 02:52 PM 8/17/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > >Here is updated patch for HEAD and stable/8. > >http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/em.csum_tso.20100817.patch > > > >It seems to work as expected under my limited environments. If > > Thanks! The patch applies cleanly and all works as expected now! I am > no longer able to trigger the bug. I just use the stock unmodified > driver normally, so no multi queues >
Glad to hear that. Thanks for testing! > # vmstat -i > interrupt total rate > irq256: em0 149 0 > irq257: em1 3 0 > irq259: em3 971 2 > irq260: ahci0 1520 3 > > > > em3: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 > > options=219b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC> > ether 00:15:17:xx:xx:xx > inet6 fe80::215:17ff:fexx:xxxx%em3 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 > inet 192.168.xx.xx netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.xx.xx > nd6 options=3<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV> > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) > status: active > > > e...@pci0:3:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x34ec8086 chip=0x10d38086 > rev=0x00 hdr=0x00 > vendor = 'Intel Corporation' > device = 'Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet Controller (82574L)' > class = network > subclass = ethernet > cap 01[c8] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 > cap 05[d0] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit enabled with 1 message > cap 10[e0] = PCI-Express 1 endpoint max data 128(256) link x1(x1) > cap 11[a0] = MSI-X supports 5 messages in map 0x1c > > > > patch < em.csum_tso.20100817.patch > Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... > The text leading up to this was: > -------------------------- > |Index: sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c > |=================================================================== > |--- sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c (revision 211398) > |+++ sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c (working copy) > -------------------------- > Patching file sys/dev/e1000/if_em.c using Plan A... > Hunk #1 succeeded at 237. > Hunk #2 succeeded at 1730. > Hunk #3 succeeded at 1759. > Hunk #4 succeeded at 1930. > Hunk #5 succeeded at 3148. > Hunk #6 succeeded at 3351. > Hunk #7 succeeded at 3533. > Hunk #8 succeeded at 3590. > Hunk #9 succeeded at 3603. > Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... > The text leading up to this was: > -------------------------- > |Index: sys/dev/e1000/if_em.h > |=================================================================== > |--- sys/dev/e1000/if_em.h (revision 211398) > |+++ sys/dev/e1000/if_em.h (working copy) > -------------------------- > Patching file sys/dev/e1000/if_em.h using Plan A... > Hunk #1 succeeded at 284. > done > > ---Mike > > > >you're using multiple Tx queues with em(4) it would be better to > >disable Tx checksum offloading as driver always have to create a > >new checksum context for each frame. This will effectively disable > >pipelined Tx data DMA which in turn greatly slows down Tx > >performance for small sized frames. The reason driver have to > >create a new checksum context when it uses multiple Tx queues comes > >from hardware limitation. The controller tracks only for the last > >context descriptor that was written such that driver does not know > >the state of checksum context configured in other Tx queue. > >Hope this helps. > > > >> > >> > >> ---Mike > >> > >> > >> At 03:36 PM 7/2/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > >> >On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:39:22PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > >> >> Hi Jack, > >> >> Just a followup to the email below. I now saw what appears > >> >> to be the same problem on RELENG_8, but on a different nic and with > >> >> VLANs. So not sure if this is a general em problem, a problem > >> >> specific to some em NICs, or a TSO problem in general. The issue > >> >> seemed to be triggered when I added a new vlan based on > >> >> > >> >> e...@pci0:14:0:0: class=0x020000 card=0x109a15d9 > >> >> chip=0x109a8086 rev=0x00 hdr=0x00 > >> >> vendor = 'Intel Corporation' > >> >> device = 'Intel PRO/1000 PL Network Adaptor (82573L)' > >> >> class = network > >> >> subclass = ethernet > >> >> cap 01[c8] = powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 > >> >> cap 05[d0] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit enabled with 1 message > >> >> cap 10[e0] = PCI-Express 1 endpoint max data 128(256) link x1(x1) > >> >> > >> >> pci14: <ACPI PCI bus> on pcib5 > >> >> em3: <Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 7.0.5> port 0x6000-0x601f > >> >> mem 0xe8300000-0xe831ffff irq 17 at device 0.0 on pci14 > >> >> em3: Using MSI interrupt > >> >> em3: [FILTER] > >> >> em3: Ethernet address: 00:30:48:9f:eb:81 > >> >> > >> >> em3: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> > >> >> metric 0 mtu 1500 > >> >> options=2098<VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_MAGIC> > >> >> ether 00:30:48:9f:eb:81 > >> >> inet 10.255.255.254 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast > >10.255.255.255 > >> >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>) > >> >> status: active > >> >> > >> >> I had to disable tso, rxcsum and txsum in order to see the devices on > >> >> the other side of the two vlans trunked off em3. Unfortunately, the > >> >> other sides were switches 100km and 500km away so I didnt have any > >> >> tcpdump capabilities to diagnose the issue. I had already created > >> >> one vlan off this NIC and all was fine. A few weeks later, I added a > >> >> new one and I could no longer telnet into the remote switches from > >> >> the local machine.... But, I could telnet into the switches from > >> >> machines not on the problem box. Hence, it would appear to be a > >> >> general TSO issue no ? I disabled tso on the nic (I didnt disable > >> >> net.inet.tcp.tso as I forgot about that).. Still nothing. I could > >> >> always ping the remote devices, but no tcp services. I then > >> >> remembered this issue from before, so I tried disabling tso on the > >> >> NIC. Still nothing. Then I disabled rxcsum and txcsum and I could > >> >> then telnet into the remote devices. > >> >> > >> >> This newly observed issue was from a buildworld on Mon Jun 14 > >> >> 11:29:12 EDT 2010. > >> >> > >> >> I will try and recreate the issue locally again to see if I can > >> >> trigger the problem on demand. Any thoughts on what it might be ? > >> >> Perhaps an issue specific to certain em nics ? > >> >> > >> > > >> >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=141843 > >> >I'm not sure whether you're seeing the same issue though. > >> >I didn't have chance to try latest em(4) on stable/7. > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 > >> Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net > >> Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net > >> Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 > Sentex Communications, m...@sentex.net > Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net > Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
