From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 19 07:11:32 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D55106564A; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:11:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fazaeli@sepehrs.com) Received: from sepehrs.com (sepehrs.com [213.217.59.98]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517B48FC14; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:11:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([192.168.3.10]) by sepehrs.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8J6iRA5030697; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:14:28 +0430 (IRDT) Message-ID: <4E76E5B9.9080301@sepehrs.com> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:18:25 +0430 From: Hooman Fazaeli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Vogel References: <4E744BCE.7060302@sepehrs.com> <20110917203218.GC13993@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <20110918210647.GA8930@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20110919020131.GA11657@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: jfv@freebsd.org, pyunyh@gmail.com, Luigi Rizzo , Arnaud Lacombe , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: intel checksum offload X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:11:32 -0000 It is interesting that how a thread goes off topic! Anyway, I will appreciate if folks, especially Jack, provide a firm comment on the original question: Does intel chips (specifically 82576) support IP TX checksum offload? If so, why the driver does not support it? On 9/19/2011 8:59 AM, Jack Vogel wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Arnaud Lacombe > wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Luigi Rizzo > wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 06:05:33PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Luigi Rizzo > wrote: > >> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 03:19:46PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:32 PM, YongHyeon PYUN > wrote: > >> >> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:57:10AM +0430, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > >> >> >> Hi list, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The data sheet for intel 82576 advertises IP TX/RX checksum offload > >> >> >> but the driver does not set CSUM_IP in ifp->if_hwassist. Does this mean that > >> >> >> driver (and chip) do not support IP TX checksum offload or the support for > >> >> >> TX is not yet included in the driver? > >> > ... > >> >> This is slightly off-topic, but still.. > >> >> > >> >> FWIW, I'm not really impressed by what chips claim to support vs. what > >> >> has been implemented in the driver. As per the product brief, the > >> > ... > >> >> [0]: the commit message say "performance was not good", but it is not > >> >> the driver's developer to decide whether or not a feature is good or > >> >> not. The developer's job is to implement the chip capabilities, and > >> >> let it to the user to enable or disable the capabilities. At best, the > >> >> developer can decide whether or not to enable the feature by default. > >> > > >> > actually, this is a perfect example where the developer has done the > >> > right thing: implemented the feature, verified that performance is bad, > >> > hence presumably removed support for the feature from the code (which also > >> > means that the normal code path will run faster because there are no > >> > run-time decisions to be made). > >> > > >> > "optional" features are often costly even when disabled. > >> > > >> I forgot to mention that in this case, the code full of > >> EM_MULTIQUEUE's #ifdef and shared code is still fully compatible with > >> the multiqueue's architecture. The only thing removed is a conditional > >> and an assignation in the driver's attachment which was enabling the > >> feature, ie. the cost you point out is still paid today, without any > >> benefit. > > > > the above suggests that you have a wonderful opportunity: with just > > a little bit of time and effort you should be able to complete/re-enable > > the missing code, run tests that you believe significant (given > > your statement below) and prove or disprove the comment about > > performance. > > > Which I did about a week ago, to finally discover that the NIC only > had only 3 MSI-X vectors configured in its EEPROM[0], and thus the > MSI-X PCI capability field ends up also with being assigned with those > 3 vectors. However, the 82574 datasheet clearly say that up-to 5 > vector can be configured, but I obviously did not find the magic trick > to make it so. Maybe I'll find some time and try to reprogram the > EEPROM. Beside that, it was clear that the old multiqueue did not > support only 3 vector being available and thus fell back on MSI. It is > not clear in jfv@'s comment whether he really tested multiqueue, or > did he test the fall-back MSI mode. > > As the PCI spec is not public, I've not been able to find out from the > few public datasheet how the PCI MSI-X capability field is first > programmed. I'd assume that the BIOS is using the data in the NVM to > program it at power up. > > - Arnaud > > [0]: at least, the MSI_X_NUM field of the NVM at offset 0x1b is 2, > thus 3 vectors. > > > I give answers to those who treat me with respect, I view them as > collaborators, we improve the drivers for everyone's benefit, rather > than jumping in to throw a critical remark here, a negative innuendo > there... > > If you notice, the Linux driver did not enable multiqueue on the hardware > either, so do you think a whole department of software engineers backed > by the hardware engineers who designed the damn thing might have had > a reason? > > IN FACT, as I have a bit more freedom with FreeBSD, I went ahead and > tried it for a while just because I could, implementing the code was not > difficult. Over time however that code proved to be a source of instability > and thus was disabled. > > I have heard a rumor that the Linux crew may actually be trying a second > time to make it work, and that might give me cause to look at it again too, > but its not clear if I'll have time with other priorities. > > Jack >