On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:28:33 -0700 Jack Vogel wrote:
> Oh, didn't realize you were running the lem code :) Will make the changes
> shortly,
r206614 works for me. Thanks :-)
> thanks for your debugging efforts.
>
> Jack
--
Mikolaj Golub
___
freebsd-s
Oh, didn't realize you were running the lem code :) Will make the changes
shortly,
thanks for your debugging efforts.
Jack
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:40:03 +0300 Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>
> MG> Hi,
>
> MG> Today I have upgraded the kernel in
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:40:03 +0300 Mikolaj Golub wrote:
MG> Hi,
MG> Today I have upgraded the kernel in my VirtualBox (3.1.51.r27187) to the
MG> latest current and have "em0: Watchdog timeout -- resetting" issue. My
MG> previous kernel was for Mar 12.
MG> Tracking the revision where the pr
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:52:07 -0500 Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> Try the code I just checked in, it puts in the CRC stripping, but also
>> tweaks the
>> TX code, this may resolve the watchdogs. Let me know.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jack
>>
>
> Yes, thi
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:17:07AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > At 07:07 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > >On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > >> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:17:07AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 07:07 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> >> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is
> >> Hartwell, 82574.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for the info.
At 07:07 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is
> Hartwell, 82574.
>
Thanks for the info.
Mike, here is updated patch. Now UDP bulk TX transfer performance
recovered a
Ah, ok, let me play around with it a bit, perhaps I'll make it definable,
of course if there is no positive benefit from using it it would seem silly
to leave it around :)
Will look at your patch changes and that issue tomorrow. Thanks
for your efforts!
Jack
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Pyun
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is
> Hartwell, 82574.
>
Thanks for the info.
Mike, here is updated patch. Now UDP bulk TX transfer performance
recovered a lot(about 890Mbps) but it still shows bad num
Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is
Hartwell, 82574.
Jack
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 04:56 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:31:18PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> > At 02:17 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeo
At 04:56 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:31:18PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 02:17 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> >Try this patch. It should fix the issue. It seems Jack forgot to
> >strip CRC bytes as old em(4) didn't strip it, probably to
> >workaround s
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:31:18PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 02:17 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> >Try this patch. It should fix the issue. It seems Jack forgot to
> >strip CRC bytes as old em(4) didn't strip it, probably to
> >workaround silicon bug of old em(4) controllers.
>
> Tha
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Try the code I just checked in, it puts in the CRC stripping, but also
> tweaks the
> TX code, this may resolve the watchdogs. Let me know.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jack
>
Yes, this is indeed the fix for both the dhclient and VirtualBox issue
(at least w
Try the code I just checked in, it puts in the CRC stripping, but also
tweaks the
TX code, this may resolve the watchdogs. Let me know.
Cheers,
Jack
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:27:10AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > You know, I'm wondering
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:27:10AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> You know, I'm wondering if the so-called ALTQ fix, which makes the TX
> start always queue is causing the problem on that side?
>
I'm not sure because I didn't configure ALTQ so it might be NOP for
non-ALTQ case.
> Jack
>
>
> On Thu
Bigger question is will it fix Brandon's VirtualBox issue??
Jack
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 02:17 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> Try this patch. It should fix the issue. It seems Jack forgot to
>> strip CRC bytes as old em(4) didn't strip it, probably to
At 02:17 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
Try this patch. It should fix the issue. It seems Jack forgot to
strip CRC bytes as old em(4) didn't strip it, probably to
workaround silicon bug of old em(4) controllers.
Thanks! The attached patch does indeed fix the dhclient issue.
It seems the
You know, I'm wondering if the so-called ALTQ fix, which makes the TX
start always queue is causing the problem on that side?
Jack
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Mik
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> > OK, some more data... It seems dhclient is getting upset as well
> > since the updated driver
> >
> > Apr 8 10:28:37 ich10 dhclient[1383]: DHCPDISCOVER on em0 to
> > 255.
LOL, what timing :)
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> > OK, some more data... It seems dhclient is getting upset as well
> > since the updated driver
> >
> > Apr 8 10:28:37 ich10 dhclient[1383]: DHCPDISCO
Both of you try something for me:
Assuming you are using the latest code in HEAD, at line 4042 please make
this insert:
/* Strip the CRC */
rctl |= E1000_RCTL_SECRC;
And try things again, I think this will solve at least the DHCP thing. I
hope.
Jack
On Thu, Apr
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> OK, some more data... It seems dhclient is getting upset as well
> since the updated driver
>
> Apr 8 10:28:37 ich10 dhclient[1383]: DHCPDISCOVER on em0 to
> 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 6
> Apr 8 10:28:38 ich10 dhclient[138
At 12:52 PM 4/8/2010, Jack Vogel wrote:
Mike, I noticed this connection is only 100Mb, that isn't
accidental? And, is it possible for
you to check a connection at 1Gb and see if the watchdogs don't happen.
My test engineer is running this code, and we are having trouble
repro'ing the issue, so
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Brandon Gooch
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Brandon Gooch <
> jamesbrandongo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> >> > Mike, I noticed th
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Brandon Gooch
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
>> > Mike, I noticed this connection is only 100Mb, that isn't accidental?
>> > And,
>> > is it possible for
>> > you to check
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Brandon Gooch
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > Mike, I noticed this connection is only 100Mb, that isn't accidental?
> And,
> > is it possible for
> > you to check a connection at 1Gb and see if the watchdogs don't happen.
> >
> > My
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Mike, I noticed this connection is only 100Mb, that isn't accidental? And,
> is it possible for
> you to check a connection at 1Gb and see if the watchdogs don't happen.
>
> My test engineer is running this code, and we are having trouble repro'
Mike, I noticed this connection is only 100Mb, that isn't accidental? And,
is it possible for
you to check a connection at 1Gb and see if the watchdogs don't happen.
My test engineer is running this code, and we are having trouble repro'ing
the issue, so any
clues might help. Is the kernel 64 or 3
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Brandon,
>
> Did the checkin of yesterday afternoon resolve the problem of the win7
> systems in
> VirtualBox? I will continue to look at this today.
>
> Jack
>
Sorry, I was a little unclear on that :(
No, the issue wasn't resolved even after
Brandon,
Did the checkin of yesterday afternoon resolve the problem of the win7
systems in
VirtualBox? I will continue to look at this today.
Jack
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Brandon Gooch
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> > OK, some more data... It seems d
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> OK, some more data... It seems dhclient is getting upset as well since the
> updated driver
>
> Apr 8 10:28:37 ich10 dhclient[1383]: DHCPDISCOVER on em0 to 255.255.255.255
> port 67 interval 6
> Apr 8 10:28:38 ich10 dhclient[1383]: ip length
OK, some more data... It seems dhclient is getting upset as well
since the updated driver
Apr 8 10:28:37 ich10 dhclient[1383]: DHCPDISCOVER on em0 to
255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 6
Apr 8 10:28:38 ich10 dhclient[1383]: ip length 328 disagrees with
bytes received 332.
Apr 8 10:28:38 ich
At 09:12 AM 4/8/2010, Mike Tancsa wrote:
Hi Jack,
I looks like the latest MFC to RELENG_8 for the em driver
has caused a regression. The box is not doing much as its a
development server in the lab. This is an Intel MB (DX58SO). dmesg
and pciconf -lvc attached.
Here are the stats f
Hi Jack,
I looks like the latest MFC to RELENG_8 for the em driver
has caused a regression. The box is not doing much as its a
development server in the lab. This is an Intel MB (DX58SO). dmesg
and pciconf -lvc attached.
Apr 6 14:27:13 ich10 kernel: em0: Watchdog timeout -- resetting
34 matches
Mail list logo
