From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 31 22:15:34 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 8E352106566B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lacombar@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507188FC14 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iyj12 with SMTP id 12so3626994iyj.13 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lAihy+FND423WbXNeCSc3rTmXYoaGl6ulSoCTzlQEdI=; b=bf0W3xeXV6Ez23iqBrbRX64DIG28F9GZQM0JY6ygguNVBf8lJElum11InE7eZthzGD Gmpx7OLZ4p0boREbnvpmF67xbfLKrwmGGQ+hRRXysfjuy1FtC4z9dQGSeKGM1p2JvGhX ghPYBgsuCBsK8CG9tIb7kJ8NbOGNFV+71NX4c= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=jwchjP68tkbVx78ytOezHyBhv8nUCL6wuV6rSDv5sm1uKeJ0qj0NWgoa0INM48nEzT f4ys/TEc100fv1ELvg8x3b+aUkDyX8+VfjM353FhPLPzj0ol0MKPcthVyXhJ4uir9GBC CCwDMEGWMCDd3ZHjszI0gcTu9FHme5S/c3Z1I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.63.72 with SMTP id xd8mr3720059icb.215.1301609733002; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.146.72 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:15:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:15:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Arnaud Lacombe To: Jack Vogel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em(4) hang [Was: Re: igb(4) won't start with "igb0: Could not setup receive structures"] 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:15:34 -0000 Hi, On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > So, what is the evidence that the driver is stuck here? > About 800 pps (mostly SYN) present wire but never ever seen on em0, plus a couple of ARP reply, which still never hit em0, plus the `missed_packets' count increasing by the same 800 pps in the last hour. Is that enough ? - Arnaud ps: I forgot to add that MAC address on the wire are fine. > I see that next_to_check !=3D next_to_refresh, which is why the > local timer won't schedule anything. OH, and I also realized there > is a problem with local_timer anyway, it will run rxeof, but that won't h= elp > if you can't enter the loop, so I need to add some code at the top to > call em_refresh_mbufs() when in this state. > > On this interrupt cause that you are focused upon, although its there in = the > design, I had talked with some of our most seasoned developers on both > the Windows and Linux side of the house, and NO one has ever used this > 'feature', because (and I'm quoting here) "there's no good use case for i= t". > Meaning, there's always some simpler way of handling the issue. > > When you use MSIX you can't read causes btw, if you configured it, it wou= ld > mean you'd just get into the regular RX handler, same as always, so why > some special bother with this cause? > > On non-MSIX hardware there is just no particular reason to worry about th= e > cause either, we can just handle the RX situation in the interrupt handle= r. > > Jack > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrot= e: >> >> Hi Jack, >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Arnaud Lacombe >> wrote: >> > [...] >> > I'll remove part of the changes I made to keep only `rx_forced_refill' >> > and the associated sysctl, re-run the tests and come back with correct >> > value, hopefully in a few hours. >> > >> Here it is: >> >> # sysctl dev.em.0.%desc >> dev.em.0.%desc: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 7.2.2 >> >> # sysctl dev.em.0.mac_stats.missed_packets >> dev.em.0.mac_stats.missed_packets: 917428 >> >> # sysctl dev.em.0.debug=3D1 >> dev.em.0.debug: I-1nterface is RUNNING and INACTIVE >> em0: hw tdh =3D 975, hw tdt =3D 975 >> em0: hw rdh =3D 884, hw rdt =3D 885 >> em0: Tx Queue Status =3D 0 >> em0: TX descriptors avail =3D 1024 >> em0: Tx Descriptors avail failure =3D 0 >> em0: RX discarded packets =3D 0 >> em0: RX Next to Check =3D 884 >> em0: RX Next to Refresh =3D 885 >> =A0-> -1 >> >> So the taskqueue cannot be scheduled to run and the driver is stuck. >> >> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: >> >> Read the code in HEAD, em_local_timer() has a test of ALL the rx queu= es >> >> and >> >> will schedule a task that refreshes mbufs if they are empty. This has >> >> exactly the >> >> same effect as checking for some interrupt cause, a cause that is not >> >> available >> >> when using MSIX on 82574, but this approach works for everything. >> >> >> Can you please point me to a reference datasheet (or errata), provided >> by Intel, about the RX Overrun interrupt not being available with >> MSI-X on the 82574 ? >> >> Currently, I only have access to [0], which precises the following: >> >> 7.4 Interrupts >> 7.4.2 MSI-X Mode >> [...] >> The following configuration and parameters are involved: >> =95 The IVAR.INT_Alloc[4:0] entries map two Tx queues, two Rx queues and >> other >> events to 5 interrupt vectors >> =95 The ICR[24:20] bits reflect specific interrupt causes >> =95 Five MSI-X interrupt vectors are provided (calculated based on four >> vectors for >> queues and one vector for other causes). The requested number of vectors >> is >> loaded from the MSI_X_N fields in the EEPROM into the PCIe MSI-X >> capability >> structure of the function. >> >> 10.2.4.1 Interrupt Cause Read Register - ICR (0x000C0; RC/WC) >> [...] >> >> about bit 24: >> >> Other Interrupt. Indicates one of the following interrupts was set: >> =95 Link Status Change. >> =95 Receiver Overrun. >> =95 MDIO Access Complete. >> =95 Small Receive Packet Detected. >> =95 Receive ACK Frame Detected. >> =95 Manageability Event Detected. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> =A0- Arnaud >> >> [0]: ftp://download.intel.com/design/network/datashts/82574.pdf > >