From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 20 22:07:48 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F0A16A400; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:07:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBB113C44C; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:07:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from phobos.samsco.home (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l0KM7f3b003303; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:07:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <45B292AB.7050503@samsco.org> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:07:39 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070111 SeaMonkey/1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Vogel References: <2a41acea0701191055u20b91c84tfabb242c9b6815fd@mail.gmail.com> <200701201041.10752.jhb@freebsd.org> <2a41acea0701201356u53dbbd94m877d4e46615d0b2f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0701201356u53dbbd94m877d4e46615d0b2f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]); Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:07:47 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Mark Atkinson Subject: Re: another msi blacklist candidate? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:07:49 -0000 Jack Vogel wrote: > On 1/20/07, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Friday 19 January 2007 13:55, Jack Vogel wrote: >> > On 1/19/07, Mark Atkinson wrote: >> > > I upgraded a box to -current yesterday with the following pci card >> in it, >> > > (this is the msi disabled verbose boot below) but upon bootup, any >> heavy >> > > network activity caused watchdog timeouts and resets. Disabling >> msi via >> > > the two tunables fixed the problem. >> > > >> > > What info do you need on this problem? >> > > >> > > found-> vendor=0x8086, dev=0x1076, revid=0x00 >> > > bus=4, slot=2, func=0 >> > > class=02-00-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 >> > > cmdreg=0x0117, statreg=0x0230, cachelnsz=16 (dwords) >> > > lattimer=0x40 (1920 ns), mingnt=0xff (63750 ns), >> maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) >> > > intpin=a, irq=10 >> > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 >> > > MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit >> > > map[10]: type 1, range 32, base 0xdf9c0000, size 17, enabled >> > > pcib4: requested memory range 0xdf9c0000-0xdf9dffff: good >> > > map[14]: type 1, range 32, base 0xdf9e0000, size 17, enabled >> > > pcib4: requested memory range 0xdf9e0000-0xdf9fffff: good >> > > map[18]: type 4, range 32, base 0xdcc0, size 6, enabled >> > > pcib4: requested I/O range 0xdcc0-0xdcff: in range >> > > pcib4: matched entry for 4.2.INTA >> > > pcib4: slot 2 INTA hardwired to IRQ 18 >> > > em0: port >> > > 0xdcc0-0xdcff m >> > > em 0xdf9c0000-0xdf9dffff,0xdf9e0000-0xdf9fffff irq 18 at device >> 2.0 on pci4 >> > > em0: Reserved 0x20000 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at 0xdf9c0000 >> > > em0: Reserved 0x40 bytes for rid 0x18 type 4 at 0xdcc0 >> > > em0: bpf attached >> > > em0: Ethernet address: 00:0e:0c:6e:a1:39 >> > > em0: [FAST] >> > >> > Talked about this internally, and the advise here is that the em >> driver change >> > so that only PCI-E adapters can use MSI, this would eliminate the >> need to >> > blacklist in the kernel PCI code. >> >> It's not em(4) that is the problem, but the system, and I'd rather we >> fix it >> generically rather than in each driver. Maybe we should disable MSI >> for non-PCIe >> systems? > > Depends what that means, say a system HAS PCI-E, but also a PCI and/or > a PCI-X slot will MSI be unavailable in those slots, that's what I would > prefer. > > Jack Are you saying that MSI should only be available to PCIe devices? That will break legitimate PCI-X devices. Scott