Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:40:02 GMT From: Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/135222: [igb] low speed routing between two igb interfaces Message-ID: <200906180140.n5I1e2Pi052320@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/135222; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/135222: [igb] low speed routing between two igb interfaces Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:32:15 +0200 Barney Cordoba wrote: > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> wrote: > >> From: Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> >> Subject: Re: kern/135222: [igb] low speed routing between two igb interfaces >> To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> >> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org >> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 5:28 PM >> Barney Cordoba wrote: >>> >>> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> >> wrote: >>>> From: Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> >>>> Subject: Re: kern/135222: [igb] low speed routing >> between two igb interfaces >>>> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org >>>> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 5:50 AM >>>> The following reply was made to PR >>>> kern/135222; it has been noted by GNATS. >>>> >>>> From: Michael <freebsdusb@bindone.de> >>>> To: Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org >>>> Subject: Re: kern/135222: [igb] low speed routing >> between >>>> two igb interfaces >>>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:45:47 +0200 >>>> >>>> The original poster reported that the >> suggested fix works >>>> for him: >>>> --- >>>> Hello Michael, >>>> >>>> Thank you. It's working. >>>> >>>> I consider it necessary to put this into the >> release >>>> errata. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mishustin Andrew wrote: >>>> >> Number: >>>> 135222 >>>> >> Category: >> kern >>>> >> Synopsis: >> [igb] >>>> low speed routing between two igb interfaces >>>> >> Confidential: no >>>> >> Severity: >> serious >>>> >> Priority: >> medium >>>> >> Responsible: >> freebsd-bugs >>>> >> State: >> open >>>> >> Quarter: >>>> >> Keywords: >> >>>> >> Date-Required: >>>> >> Class: >> sw-bug >>>> >> >> Submitter-Id: current-users >>>> >> Arrival-Date: Wed >> Jun 03 >>>> 18:30:01 UTC 2009 >>>> >> Closed-Date: >>>> >> Last-Modified: >>>> >> Originator: >> Mishustin >>>> Andrew >>>> >> Release: >> FreeBSD >>>> 7.1-RELEASE amd64, FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE amd64 >>>> >> Organization: >>>> > HNT >>>> >> Environment: >>>> > FreeBSD test.hnt 7.2-RELEASE FreeBSD >> 7.2-RELEASE #12: >>>> Thu Apr 30 18:28:15 MSD 20 >>>> > 09 admin@test.hnt:/usr/src/sys/amd64/compile/GENERIC >>>> amd64 >>>> >> Description: >>>> > I made a FreeBSD multiprocesor server >> to act as >>>> simple gateway. >>>> > It use onboard Intel 82575EB Dual-Port >> Gigabit >>>> Ethernet Controller. >>>> > I observe traffic speed near 400 >> Kbit/s. >>>> > I test both interfaces separately - >>>> > ftp client work at speed near 1 Gbit/s >> in both >>>> directions. >>>> > Then I change NIC to old Intel "em" NIC >> - gateway >>>> work at speed near 1 Gbit/s. >>>> > >>>> > Looks like a bug in igb driver have an >> effect upon >>>> forwarded traffic. >>>> > >>>> > If you try >>>> > hw.igb.enable_aim=0 >>>> > The speed is near 1 Mbit/s >>>> > >>>> > hw.igb.rxd, hw.igb.txd, "ifconfig -tso" >> has no >>>> effect. >>>> > >>>> > Nothing in messages.log >>>> > >>>> > netstat -m >>>> > 516/1674/2190 mbufs in use >> (current/cache/total) >>>> > 515/927/1442/66560 mbuf clusters in >> use >>>> (current/cache/total/max) >>>> > 515/893 mbuf+clusters out of packet >> secondary zone in >>>> use (current/cache) >>>> > 0/44/44/33280 4k (page size) jumbo >> clusters in use >>>> (current/cache/total/max) >>>> > 0/0/0/16640 9k jumbo clusters in use >>>> (current/cache/total/max) >>>> > 0/0/0/8320 16k jumbo clusters in use >>>> (current/cache/total/max) >>>> > 1159K/2448K/3607K bytes allocated to >> network >>>> (current/cache/total) >>>> > 0/0/0 requests for mbufs denied >>>> (mbufs/clusters/mbuf+clusters) >>>> > 0/0/0 requests for jumbo clusters >> denied (4k/9k/16k) >>>> > 0/0/0 sfbufs in use (current/peak/max) >>>> > 0 requests for sfbufs denied >>>> > 0 requests for sfbufs delayed >>>> > 0 requests for I/O initiated by >> sendfile >>>> > 0 calls to protocol drain routines >>>> > >>>> > I use only IPv4 traffic. >>>> > >>>> >> How-To-Repeat: >>>> > On machine with two igb interfaces >>>> > use rc.conf like this: >>>> > >>>> > hostname="test.test" >>>> > gateway_enable="YES" >>>> > ifconfig_igb0="inet 10.10.10.1/24" >>>> > ifconfig_igb1="inet 10.10.11.1/24" >>>> > >>>> > And try create heavy traffic between >> two networks. >>>> >> Fix: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> Release-Note: >>>> >> Audit-Trail: >>>> >> Unformatted: >>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>> > freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org >>> >>> This is not a bug. Unless you consider poorly written >> drivers to be bugs. You need to provide your tuning >> parameters for the card as well otherwise there's nothing to >> learn. >>> The issue is that the driver doesn't address the >> purpose of the controller; which is to utilize >> multiprocessor systems more effectively. The effect is that >> lock contention actually makes things worse than if you just >> use a single task as em does. Until the multiqueue drivers >> are re-written to manage locks properly you are best advised >> to save your money and stick with em. >>> You should get similar performance using 1 queue as >> with em. You could also force legacy configuration by >> forcing igb_setup_msix to return 0. Sadly, this is the best >> performance you will get from the stock driver. >>> Barney >>> >>> Barney >>> >>> >>> >> I tried using 1 queue and it didn't make things any better >> (actually I'm >> not sure if that worked at all). If it is considered a bug >> or not >> doesn't really matter, what actually matters for users (who >> cannot >> always chose which network controller will be on-board) is >> that they get >> a least decent performance when doing IP forwarding (and >> not the >> 5-50kb/s I've seen). You can get this out of the >> controller, when >> disabling lro through the sysctl. That's why I've been >> asking to put >> this into the release errata section and/or at least the >> igb man page, >> because the sysctl isn't documented anywhere. Also the >> fact, that tuning >> the sysctl only affects the behaviour when it's set on boot >> might be >> considered problematic. >> >> So at the very least, I think the following should be >> done: >> 1. Document the sysctl in man igb(4) >> 2. Put a known issues paragraph to man igb(4) which >> explains the issue >> and what to put in sysctl.conf to stop this from happening >> 3. Add an entry to the release errata page about this issue >> (like I >> suggested in one of my earlier emails) and stating >> something like "see >> man igb(4) for details) >> >> This is not about using the controller to its full >> potential, but to >> safe Joe Admin from spending days on figuring out why the >> machine is >> forwarding packages slower than his BSD 2.x machine did in >> the 90s. >> >> cheers >> Michael > > None of the offload crap should be enabled by default. > > The real point is that "Joe Admin" shouldn't be using controllers that have bad drivers at all. If you have to use whatever hardware you have laying around, and don't have enough flexibility to lay out $100 for a 2 port controller that works to use with your $2000 server, than you need to get your priorities in order. People go out and buy redundant power supplies, high GHZ quad core processors and gobs of memory and then they use whatever crappy onboard controller they get no matter how poorly its suppo rted. Its mindless. > > Barney > > > How should anybody know that the controller is poorly supported if there is nothing in the documentation, release notes, man pages or anywhere else about this? The fact of the matter is that "the offload crap" _is_ enabled by default. The release is out, it claims to support the controller. There _is_ a workaround and I'm asked if somebody could document this so users will have a chance. I'm also not convinced that it is a crappy controller per se, but just poorly supported. We used those a lot before without any issues, unfortunately now we had touse IP forwarding in a machine that has that controller (it has 6 interfaces in total, four em ports and two igb ports, all of them are in use and I don't feel like hooking up the sodering iron). So bottomline: I said, there is a problem with the driver, there is a workaround and it should be documented. You say, the driver is bad and nobody should use it and if they do it's their own damn fault. We won't do anything about it and refuse to tell anybody, because we are the only ones who should know. We don't care if people can actually use our software and still claim the hardware is actually supported. Your attitude is really contra productive (actually googling around I see you made similar statements in the past about stupid people not willing to spend xxx$ on whatever piece of hardware, so maybe you're just trolling). Michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200906180140.n5I1e2Pi052320>