Hi Thomas, 2017-10-31 21:23 GMT+01:00 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com>: > Hello, > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:09:38 +0100, Simon Guinot wrote: > >> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:23:22 +0100, Sven Müller wrote: >> > > After quite a long time of trying to reproduce the issue without any >> > > success I got 3 network crashes today. And all errors occurred with a >> > > kernel including the patch: >> > > >> > > 2a90f7e1d5d04e4f1060268e0b55a2c702bbd67a >> > > >> > > At least according to Andreas' and my problems we can exclude the 6ad2 >> > > patch as the source of the errors. >> > >> > Simon, 2a90f7e1d5d04e4f1060268e0b55a2c702bbd67a is your commit, adding >> > xmit_more support, and a number of people are reporting stability >> > issues with this patch applied. >> >> I wrote an earlier version of this patch. But I think this commit has >> been modified by the submitter Marcin Wojtas because I don't remember >> anything about the maximum number of descriptors allowed to be flush. >> >> > >> > Do you think you will have some time to look into this ? >> >> No I don't have time to look into that. >> >> But after a quick look, I wonder what is happening if >> "txq->pending + frags > MVNETA_TXQ_DEC_SENT_MASK" ? Because IIUC >> mvneta_txq_pend_desc_add() is called anyway. And according to the >> comment inside the function, it assumes there is less than 255 >> descriptors to send... It looks suspect. > > Thanks for the feedback. Marcin, do you remember this xmit_more patch? >
Yes I do. It seems pretty simple and didn't show any issues durin very long stress tests. I will check the mvneta_tx() routine if there's anything suspicios/missed. Marcin
