From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 20:37:38 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367FF106564A; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:37:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FB38FC27; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so2850127gxk.13 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:37:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4tKv703wl7PQ0Zvg9ztljEJxNM/1/LCB04sy3mOrGlM=; b=ArQOsEVF2ZrvEeKF2SUfqqMm5oJIRDfDVsyau87AaLtyBoIgYjp+J7s6g255eSCTX8 ZV9u8iAHl1eHcJTr0NvWsz0U6mfxoAdiugk24Z00nkPz6+lXa5vl3zDVuKLgTfPQs+o9 vcQ/2waHxRXlTFmBLttEKVMaC4BsigpnTBNv8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=SUcGibnLdaY9a/xW2yMCdEqlAVT+LCTyc1ygusYHJNAal8OHtWrpMdBUNsBQglhm1U RGUoUrE2pr9wiOV+MprWy2ZeIcnyuc+r+2TlV/ltGaiadkIAf2Jf0Dl8nLfyquGwsOxM jtRE6RJA4IPCedNIihD5aSwztmo0qKCZbsZ6M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.54.29 with SMTP id g29mr9004138agk.46.1296592656885; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.171.17 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:37:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> References: <1290533941.3173.50.camel@home-yahoo> <4CEC0548.1080801@sentex.net> <4D2C636B.5040003@sentex.net> <4D3C4795.40205@sentex.net> <4D42EA74.4090807@sentex.net> <1296590190.2326.6.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:37:36 -0800 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: Sean Bruno Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" , Ivan Voras , Jan Koum , Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: em driver, 82574L chip, and possibly ASPM X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:37:38 -0000 Looks good, except I don't like code #if 0'd out, I'll make an if_em.c to try and send it shortly. Jack On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sean Bruno wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:05 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: > > At this point I'm open to any ideas, this sounds like a good one Sean, > > thanks. > > Mike, you want to test this ? > > > > Jack > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Sean Bruno > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 08:10 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > On 1/23/2011 10:21 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > > On 1/21/2011 4:21 AM, Jan Koum wrote: > > > > One other thing I noticed is that when the nic is in its > > hung state, the > > > > WOL option is gone ? > > > > > > > > e.g > > > > > > > > em1: flags=8843 > > metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > > > > options=19b > > > > ether 00:15:17:ed:68:a4 > > > > > > > > vs > > > > > > > > > > > > em1: flags=8843 > > metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > > > > > > > > options=219b > > > > ether 00:15:17:ed:68:a4 > > > > > > > > > Another hang last night :( > > > > > > Whats really strange is that the WOL_MAGIC and TSO4 got > > turned back on > > > somehow ? I had explicitly turned it off, but when the NIC > > was in its > > > bad state > > > > > > em1: flags=8843 > > metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > > options=2198 > > > > > > ... its back on along with TSO? Not sure if its coincidence > > or a side > > > effect or what. For now, I have had to re-purpose this nic > > to something > > > else. > > > > > > debug info shows > > > > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: Interface is RUNNING and > > INACTIVE > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: hw tdh = 625, hw tdt = > > 625 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: hw rdh = 903, hw rdt = > > 903 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: Tx Queue Status = 0 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: TX descriptors avail = > > 1024 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: Tx Descriptors avail > > failure = 0 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: RX discarded packets = > > 0 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: RX Next to Check = 903 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: RX Next to Refresh = > > 904 > > > Jan 28 00:25:27 backup3 kernel: em1: link state changed to > > DOWN > > > Jan 28 00:25:30 backup3 kernel: em1: link state changed to > > UP > > > > > > > > > ---Mike > > > > > > > > I'm trying to get some more testing done regarding my > > suggestions around > > the OACTIVE assertions in the driver. More or less, it looks > > like > > intense periods of activity can push the driver into the > > OACTIVE hold > > off state and the logic isn't quite right in igb(4) or em(4) > > to handle > > it. > > > > I suspect that something like this modification to igb(4) may > > be > > required for em(4). > > > > Comments? > > > > Sean > > > > > Does the logic I've implemented look sane? > > Sean > >