From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Fri Sep 25 22:33:39 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4E53E731D for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 22:33:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fuz@fuz.su) Received: from fuz.su (fuz.su [IPv6:2001:41d0:8:e508::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "amnesiac", Issuer "amnesiac" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BymsY5pcbz3S67 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 22:33:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fuz@fuz.su) Received: from fuz.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fuz.su (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08PMXZS5004325 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Sep 2020 00:33:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from fuz@fuz.su) Received: (from fuz@localhost) by fuz.su (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 08PMXY1C004324; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 00:33:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from fuz) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 00:33:34 +0200 From: Robert Clausecker To: Mark Millard Cc: Robert Crowston , freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RPI 4B on UEFI: xhci0 disconnects under high load Message-ID: <20200925223334.GB3984@fuz.su> References: <20200924224749.GA18463@fuz.su> <66418AE0-79C9-4402-8325-7094E4230D38@yahoo.com> <20200925075822.GB51892@fuz.su> <9EBAAD5C-120D-4F7B-9C5F-1BB045CC1E17@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4BymsY5pcbz3S67 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fuz@fuz.su designates 2001:41d0:8:e508::1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fuz@fuz.su X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.13 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[fuz.su]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.002]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.16)[0.163]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.988]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16276, ipnet:2001:41d0::/32, country:FR]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[protonmail.com,freebsd.org]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 22:33:39 -0000 Hi Mark, On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:08:41AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > > > On 2020-Sep-25, at 03:39, Robert Crowston wrote: > > > Could the failure of the ACPI patch to work be related to the > pre-September 2020 dtbs reporting 4 GB available for pci DMA > (as you reported today in another thread)? > > > > I'm unclear if you are specifically referring to: > > A) this thread's "disconnects under high load" failures? > B) the huge file duplication and diff/cmp test failures? > C) both? > D) even more? > > For (A) I'd not conclude much until results are in for > FreeBSD that is head -r365918 or later. It might be a > fixed problem. I've rebuild a kernel based on github revision e77e27fa: pwm(8): fix potential duty overflow, use unsigneds for period and duty Not sure what the revision number of that one is. The only patch I applied is D25219 as the others don't cleanly apply. The xhci disconnection error did not occur again. I'll check if this also fixes the problem that I wasn't able to boot from a disk attached to a USB 3.0 boot, but right now I don't have physical access to the machine, so it'll have to wait. Note that this was without the RAM size limiter on. Maybe I didn't generate enough load for this to be an issue. > For (B), I've been reporting examples of the issue since > 2020-Jun-21 using rpi4-uefi-devel v1.16 and head -r360311 . > But my most recent reports are based on the modern dtb that > has 3 GiByte for the size of the range (uefi v1.20 and its > bundled RPI4B materials or newer raspberry pi materials) > and head -r365932. So both old and new got the same type > of failures. (I've not tested materials from prior to > 2020-Jun-21 with > 3072 MiByte in this way: that is when > I discovered the test.) > > Does that answer your question? > > === > Mark Millard > marklmi at yahoo.com > ( dsl-only.net went > away in early 2018-Mar) Yours, Robert Clausecker -- () ascii ribbon campaign - for an 8-bit clean world /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments