From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 20:20:52 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822ED106564A; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:20:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from seanbru@yahoo-inc.com) Received: from mrout2-b.corp.re1.yahoo.com (mrout2-b.corp.re1.yahoo.com [69.147.107.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459588FC12; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rideseveral.corp.yahoo.com [10.73.160.231]) by mrout2-b.corp.re1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id p11KJPa8040694; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:19:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=cobra; t=1296591566; bh=gz56gpIBkyRvWf/OxNDQ2mfB91/S+vlsI4QkXNZ8ikY=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-ID:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=isQUmCffUaIfh6l9jpa5mAW+zoyAyAUitxI66MQ8eKk37ldbi+m4TAOwhTO/DQfSL 9b0Ef/+CLfgp7e6++oUPvJQw8zk8B01bR5YBxkiKhnaqzaZFKTDlXv/h74bdXtlo16 f8oEo5juK93NzVxVAR5zREMZVKcCWCmy2/QaX+NI= From: Sean Bruno To: Jack Vogel In-Reply-To: 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:19:25 -0800 Message-ID: <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 20:20:52 -0000 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