Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:06:50 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: Mark Atkinson <atkin901@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nve related LOR triggered by lots of small packets, and a hard hang Message-ID: <20070210020650.GA51110@cdnetworks.co.kr> In-Reply-To: <eqiamu$5lo$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <20070110120731.GA1515@shark.localdomain> <200701100910.13167.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070110155331.GA2762@shark.localdomain> <20070111004044.GA33964@cdnetworks.co.kr> <eqdn24$ck$1@sea.gmane.org> <eqiamu$5lo$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:23:41AM -0800, Mark Atkinson wrote: > Mark Atkinson wrote: > > > Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:53:31PM +0300, Sergey Zaharchenko wrote: > >> > Hello John! > >> > > >> > Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:10:12AM -0500 you wrote: > >> > [snip] > >> > > Have you tried using nfe(4)? :) > >> > > >> > Now I have, and it works just fine, thanks (I somehow thought nfe was > >> > specific to some platform). Why isn't it the default? Smaller range of > >> > hardware supported? > >> > > >> > >> AFAIK, nfe(4) supports more hardwares than that of nve(4). > >> Try overhauled nfe(4) in the following URL. > >> > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfe.c > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfereg.h > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfevar.h > >> > >> The patch fixed serveral bugs in nfe(4) and it should perform better > >> than nve(4). The following hardware features are supported. > >> o TSO > >> o Tx/Rx IP/TCP/UDP checksum offload > >> o VLAN hardware tag insertion/stripping > >> o Jumbo frame(up to 9100 bytes) > >> > >> It seems that the hardware supports MSI/MSI-X too but I don't have > >> nForce hardwares that supports MSI/MSI-X so it's hard to implement/ > >> experiment it. Accoring to the Shigeaki Tagashira, the author of > >> FreeBSD nfe(4), his hardware claims to support 8 messages. I've > >> checked Linux forcedeth driver to get hardware information for > >> MSI/MSI-X but it I cound't understand the details. :-( > >> > > > > I've been running into this hardlock LOR a lot recently on a TYAN 2895 > > (K8WE) based box. So I tried your patch to nfe on today's -current. I > > tried a couple of small packet ping floods to a lan neighbor under nfe and > > it survived. Did fine with some large NFS over TCP transfers as well. > > However, I'll leave it up and running to see if it keels over in the > > future. > > > > pci128: <ACPI PCI bus> on pcib6 > > pci128: physical bus=128 > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x005e, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=0, func=0 > > class=05-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 > > cmdreg=0x0006, statreg=0x00b0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x00 (0 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x00d3, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=1, func=0 > > class=05-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=1 > > cmdreg=0x000f, statreg=0x00a0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x00 (0 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) > > map[14]: type 1, range 32, base 0xd8400000, size 12, enabled > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x0057, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=10, func=0 > > class=06-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 > > cmdreg=0x0007, statreg=0x00b0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x01 (250 ns), maxlat=0x14 (5000 ns) > > intpin=a, irq=5 > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D1 D2 D3 current D0 > > map[10]: type 1, range 32, base 0xd8401000, size 12, enabled > > map[14]: type 4, range 32, base 0x3000, size 3, enabled > > pcib6: matched entry for 128.10.INTA (src \\_SB_.PCI1.LMAC:0) > > pci_link22: Picked IRQ 52 with weight 0 > > ioapic3: Changing polarity for pin 20 to high > > pcib6: slot 10 INTA routed to irq 52 via \\_SB_.PCI1.LMAC > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x005d, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=14, func=0 > > class=06-04-00, hdrtype=0x01, mfdev=0 > > cmdreg=0x0107, statreg=0x0010, cachelnsz=16 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x04 (1000 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 > > MSI supports 2 messages, 64 bit > > pci128: <memory> at device 0.0 (no driver attached) > > pci128: <memory> at device 1.0 (no driver attached) > > nfe1: <NVIDIA nForce4 CK804 MCP9 Networking Adapter> port 0x3000-0x3007 > > mem 0xd8 > > 401000-0xd8401fff irq 52 at device 10.0 on pci128 > > nfe1: Reserved 0x1000 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at 0xd8401000 > > nfe1: bpf attached > > e1: Ethernet address: 00:e0:81:57:d9:af > > miibus1: <MII bus> on nfe1 > > e1000phy1: <Marvell 88E1111 Gigabit PHY> PHY 1 on miibus1 > > e1000phy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, > > 1000baseTX-FDX, auto > > ioapic3: routing intpin 20 (PCI IRQ 52) to vector 57 > > nfe1: [MPSAFE] > > nfe1: [FAST] > > After a day of running this, it became obvious the nfe driver patch has some > sort of issue, at least with -current and this board. Although NFS speeds > seemed reasonable, transfers over TCP from a webserver suffered some sort > of very noticeable pause/send/pause/send... type problem that reduced > transfers to about 6Kbyte/s. This problem went away when putting nve back > into the kernel and retrying the same scenerio. > Would you explain the scenario to reproduce it on my box? How about disabling checksum offload? -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070210020650.GA51110>