Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:30:22 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: jfv@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 82574L hangs (with r233708 e1000 driver). Message-ID: <201205041130.22202.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20120501162121.GV2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20120407133715.GU2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120412183849.GA2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120501162121.GV2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:21:21 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:38:49PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:19:39PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 08, 2012 1:11:25 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 04:22:07PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> > > > > Make sure you have any firmware up to the latest available, if that
doesn't
> > > > > help
> > > > > let me know and I'll check internally to see if there are any
outstanding
> > > > > issues
> > > > > in shared code, that will be after the weekend.
> > > >
> > > > I had BIOS rev. 151, after you hint I found rev. 154 on the site.
> > > > Now BIOS reports itself as MTCDT10N.86A.0154.2012.0323.1601,
> > > > March 23.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, upgrade did not changed anything in regard of hanging
> > > > interface.
> > >
> > > Does reverting 233708 make any difference? Have you tried futzing
around with
> > > kgdb when it is hung to see what state the device is in (software state
at
> > > least)?
> > It does, in a sense that without r233708 the interface becomes stuck
> > almost immediately. I just upgraded to the e1000@r234154, which does not
> > change much.
> >
> > I fiddled with the adapter state after the hang in kgdb more, and I
> > noted something interesting. Apparently, tx works. When I ping the remote
> > host from my suffering atom machine, remote host sees the packet. Also
> > remote machine sees some udp traffic originating from the tom, like
> > ntp queries.
> >
> > And, on receive, the atom board does receive interrupts, em0:rx 0 counter
> > in vmstat -i increases. Even more fun, the sysctl dev.em.0.debug
> > shows increasing hw rdh (as I understand, this is hardware 'last
> > received' packet pointer for rx ring). So I looked at the packet
> > descriptor at hw rdt index, and there I see
> > (kgdb) p/x ((struct adapter *)0xffffff80010e4000)->rx_rings->rx_base[78]
> > $11 = {buffer_addr = 0x12a128800, length = 0x5ea, csum = 0x3c2b, status =
0x0,
> > errors = 0x0, special = 0x0}
> >
> > Apparently, the Descriptor Done bit is clear, so the em_rxeof() function
> > breaks from the loop, not consuming the current packet. Also, it returns
> > false due to DD bit clear. This prevents em_msix_rx() from scheduling
> > taskqueue for processing. So apparent cause for the hang is missing
> > DD bit in descriptor.
> >
> > I am not sure isn't all this is obvious for anybody who knows em
> > internals, and were to go from there.
>
> Ok, nobody cares.
>
> Below is the workaround I use to prevent the interface wedging.
> It seems that the sole PCI register read (namely, the rx ring head read)
> and consequent recheck of the descriptor status greatly reduce the
> likelihood of the issue. Unfortunately, the read does not eliminate
> the hang completely. So it is not some PCIe coherency problem.
>
> With the patch applied, I am able to copy around blu-ray images, while
> previously the interface hang in 20-30 seconds of 100Mbit/s traffic.
> Sometimes the messages are printed:
> em0: Workaround: head 1018 tail 1002 cur 1010
> em0: Workaround: head 976 tail 973 cur 974
> em0: Workaround: head 950 tail 939 cur 946
> em0: Workaround: head 435 tail 419 cur 426
>
> Machine is still dead due to random memory corruption which I see, in
> particular, pmap sometimes read garbage from PTEs. I have no idea is
> it related to em0 rx descriptor missed writes, or is a different issue.
Humm, so if I'm reading this correctly, the card "skips" a receive
descriptor and stores a packet at the next descriptor? That's just
bizarre.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201205041130.22202.jhb>