From nobody Sun Nov 30 13:51:29 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4dK7kL25Pqz6JWPM for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2025 13:51:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brnrd@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp-out08.qsp.nl (smtp-out08.qsp.nl [193.254.214.172]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.qsp.nl", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dK7kK6fYLz4D8w for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2025 13:51:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brnrd@freebsd.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=freebsd.org (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 193.254.214.172 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of brnrd@freebsd.org) smtp.mailfrom=brnrd@freebsd.org Received: from 5921114a.static.cust.trined.nl (5921114a.static.cust.trined.nl [89.33.17.74]) by smtp02.qsp.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18BDF2CF8 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2025 14:51:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com [209.85.208.176]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by 5921114a.static.cust.trined.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4dK7k26QcQzF0H for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2025 13:51:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-37bbb36c990so39391991fa.0 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2025 05:51:39 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU6LVzKl/WTNLmKOam1tcQmgSihQSVkSa7knnd0qQSmMHl5n/OLpugzXhrBR/C2lEvRXair8H6MiTTc7w==@freebsd.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzPbPVnyuZWTTKnb+QyRtdaIKAo9p29M3euKxnv4+A9X7Uf14rT wN+SWwHoR5ZQAsJIpGOPMSrVriNCOLC6JfxIhyyKZCW68uZBvEwyqjHA9Ry23fgWMk7WRft5baK n7nSFlKNem8UYFaMVkX+EoBFMraSbTA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGzxFcujESTFCaJ+LivmtPjiojX0uPDTe6PQ72TNDFxN7RAizJe+Eu8SO2/EAJ7sDpW/hb5nLNXVCB20rUWoAI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:884:b0:377:d151:c090 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-37cc82aef0cmr109480161fa.1.1764510698674; Sun, 30 Nov 2025 05:51:38 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Bernard Spil Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 14:51:29 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bm8ItdFGPyMSh7aaaWBR_hF4iVtcmLXR_5FxleINcWH_g2tw1mV0GujvlU Message-ID: Subject: Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver To: Adrian Chadd , Alex Dupre Cc: Florian Smeets , FreeBSD Net , freebsd-current Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.95 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.948]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[freebsd.org : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[brnrd]; BLOCKLISTDE_FAIL(0.00)[89.33.17.74:server fail,193.254.214.172:server fail,209.85.208.176:server fail]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all:c]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.208.176:received]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4dK7kK6fYLz4D8w Hi all, Thanks to flo for notifying me that there's an alternative to net/realtek-re-kmod. I've had crashes running realtek-re-kmod and realtek-re-kmod198 before, none of the switches seemed to help. After upgrading to from 14.3 to 15.0-RC4-p1, I thought I'd test again. So far so good, no crashes. Generating load with iperf for 5 minutes from 2 machines to the server works OK with the 1101.00 for now. Nice to have this if_rge in the back pocket when things don't work out with 1101.00. Started porting it, find the patch at https://brnrd.eu/bsd/patch-net_realtek-rge-kmod-20251129 Seeing that this is supposed to land in base, I'm holding back on committin= g it. Thanks all! Bernard (brnrd@) On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 5:48=E2=80=AFPM Adrian Chadd w= rote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 at 10:13, Florian Smeets wrote: > > > > On 23.11.25 03:16, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > hi! > > > > > > i've ported Kevin Lo's openbsd driver for these realtek chipsets to F= reeBSD. > > > It works well enough for me to use on my laptop w/ RTL8125B / Killer = E3000. > > > I'm now opening it up to others who are willing to build/run a kernel > > > module to test the driver out and report back. > > > > > This is great. Finally, an in tree driver for these very common NICs. > > The 1100.00 version of the net/realtek-re-kmod was just unreliable for > > me (constant hangs, no matter which options I turned off and on). I've > > only done light testing with the official 1101.00 driver. I was able to > > wedge it with less than a minute of iperf3, and the ifconfig down/up > > dance that was able to revive the interface with 1100.00 was not able t= o > > recover the interface. > > > > I ran if_rge on my NAS and did some testing. I haven't had one hang wit= h > > this driver, even after pounding the network for hours. That's a big > > plus for me. Thanks. > > > > I was able to achieve close to 2.5Gb/s TX and close to 1Gb/s RX with > > iperf3 --bidir. > > > > CPU usage appears to be substantially higher than with the official > > Realtek driver. > > That's a good data point. > > > > > [intr{irq59: rge0}] goes to around 50% of one core, and [kernel{rge0 > > taskq thread}] hovers between 20-25% when running the above iperf3 test= s. > > > > With the official 1101.00 driver, the only process using > 1% CPU is > > this one [kernel{re0 taskq}] and it is around 10% with the test > > mentioned above. > > I'll go dig into that a bit. It shouldn't be taking very much CPU to proc= ess > this number of packets; the bulk of the CPU should be used by the IP stac= k. > > I'll go run some profiling over the next few days and see if I can nail d= own > what I'm doing poorly. Hopefully it's something stupid on my end. ;-) > > > > -adrian >