Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:55:05 -0800 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>, Jan Koum <jan@whatsapp.com>, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: em driver, 82574L chip, and possibly ASPM Message-ID: <AANLkTi=piwenobgYX=o7ULAasQUj9N1RGd1WtrDbk0%2Bz@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinD0q3r85fAj0Kju9Vc6fT-MVrR1LRczu_XaRW0@mail.gmail.com> References: <icgd44$89l$1@dough.gmane.org> <1290533941.3173.50.camel@home-yahoo> <4CEC0548.1080801@sentex.net> <AANLkTim82pWyf_X%2Bu72uj8RkWeRUb_4KSQ8B_HpNYsP9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinO1yfN--_K63-yD1LY3wusOF7wB2wwG8DUd5Z4@mail.gmail.com> <4D2C636B.5040003@sentex.net> <AANLkTimFzYZOkwdExm5JPRB7BaN8Am8pPcgrMT0wVZqy@mail.gmail.com> <4D3C4795.40205@sentex.net> <4D42EA74.4090807@sentex.net> <1296590190.2326.6.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <AANLkTimdJNV4Hxm6%2Bi3uVa7es9Vu=TDAFBzfUycuM=sZ@mail.gmail.com> <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinD0q3r85fAj0Kju9Vc6fT-MVrR1LRczu_XaRW0@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <jfvogel@gmail.com> 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 <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> 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 <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> >> > 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<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> >> > metric 0 mtu 1500 >> > > > >> > >> options=19b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4> >> > > > ether 00:15:17:ed:68:a4 >> > > > >> > > > vs >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > em1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> >> > metric 0 mtu 1500 >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> options=219b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC> >> > > > 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<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> >> > metric 0 mtu 1500 >> > > >> > options=2198<VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC> >> > > >> > > ... 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 >> >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=piwenobgYX=o7ULAasQUj9N1RGd1WtrDbk0%2Bz>