From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 20:55:16 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 3556510656A5; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:55:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03178FC17; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxh35 with SMTP id 35so2830985yxh.13 for ; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:55:14 -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=oAGops7MoDv5bID3Yrt+NJoIzOya8mkoRBsMwPRph48=; b=YDvI+peJTwSu73wClxmjuUNalas2e4QAbFI96i7Pu7xuyVhl7fnif6nkfOC3upgGsi YJJ64VYAYy7HI211lVl37p6mAL/ZmO8dWDpAPWLFvH5r267GwVsM0YXNUiKNp/EoZ54A qFWfEFfnDnT4maAQh83+KRX9f5fMxd37KaCfg= 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=Dl8ODc21LjLSHp++3TyQE3wyTR7IKMAJq0LyBXMnRg0b+QG+vt6yudZ6hb819d8uX2 g0d9hJIQkMP3qapcnDhL9wjvL4AFRAETnZzCrX8yooFsevnBBE872gj6/w8dCUjLhYEF 5GWUQAH4Gz8fD67Fg2IYZ94cWYOoujQx9fkfk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.228.20 with SMTP id a20mr6519178ybh.22.1296593705719; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:55:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.171.17 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:55:05 -0800 (PST) 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> <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:55:05 -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 20:55:16 -0000 Mike, just to remind me, are you running these 82574 adapters with MSIX ? Jack On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > 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 >> >> >