From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 17:37:40 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4823A1065672; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:37:40 +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 D453D8FC1A; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o5BHbaLB039896; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:37:36 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <291D17F7-F387-4A13-8ED9-2898A9F7E018@mac.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:37:36 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <028BA7D4-90C8-4D2D-B9A5-C1C3CF9B6D7D@samsco.org> References: <201006110300.o5B30X9q045387@svn.freebsd.org> <201006110751.40735.jhb@freebsd.org> <853068F6-D736-4DA3-859F-D946D096843D@samsco.org> <19B0DF11-5998-40F5-8095-8D2521B1C597@mac.com> <291D17F7-F387-4A13-8ED9-2898A9F7E018@mac.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin Subject: Re: svn commit: r209026 - in head/sys/ia64: ia64 include X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:37:40 -0000 On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >=20 > On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Scott Long wrote: >=20 >> On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>>=20 >>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Scott Long wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>>>> On Thursday 10 June 2010 11:00:33 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>>>>> Author: marcel >>>>>> Date: Fri Jun 11 03:00:32 2010 >>>>>> New Revision: 209026 >>>>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209026 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> Bump MAX_BPAGES from 256 to 1024. It seems that a few drivers, = bge(4) >>>>>> in particular, do not handle deferred DMA map load operations at = all. >>>>>> Any error, and especially EINPROGRESS, is treated as a hard error = and >>>>>> typically abort the current operation. The fact that the busdma = code >>>>>> queues the load operation for when resources (i.e. bounce buffers = in >>>>>> this particular case) are available makes this especially = problematic. >>>>>> Bounce buffering, unlike what the PR synopsis would suggest, = works >>>>>> fine. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> While on the subject, properly implement swi_vm(). >>>>>=20 >>>>> NIC drivers do not handle deferred load operations at all (note = that=20 >>>>> bus_dmamap_load_mbuf() and bus_dmamap_load_mbuf_sg() enforce = BUS_DMA_NOWAIT). >>>>> It is common practice to just drop the packet in that case. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Yes, long ago when network drivers started being converted to = busdma, it was agreed that EINPROGRESS simply doesn't make sense for = them. Any platform that winds up making extensive use of bounce buffers = for network hardware is going to perform poorly no matter what, and = should hopefully have some sort of IOMMU that can be used instead. >>>=20 >>> Unfortunately things aren't as simple as is presented. >>>=20 >>> For one, bge(4) wedges as soon as the platform runs out of bounce >>> buffers when they're needed. The box needs to be reset in order to >>> get the interface back. I pick any implementation that remains >>> functional over a mis-optimized one that breaks. Deferred load >>> operations are more performance optimal than failure is. >>>=20 >>=20 >> This sounds like a bug in the bge driver. I don't see if through = casual inspection, but the driver should be able to either drop the mbuf = entirely, or requeue it on the ifq and then restart the ifq later. >>=20 >>> Also: the kernel does nothing to guarantee maximum availability >>> of DMA-able memory under load, so bounce buffers (or use of I/O >>> MMUs for that matter) are a reality. Here too the performance >>> argument doesn't necessarily hold because the kernel may be >>> busy with more than just sending and receiving packets and the >>> need to defer load operations is very appropriate. If the >>> alternative is just dropped packets, I'm fine with that too, >>> but I for one cannot say that *not* filling a H/W ring with >>> buffers is not going to wedge the hardware in some cases. >>>=20 >>> Plus: SGI Altix does not have any DMA-able memory for 32-bit >>> hardware. The need for an I/O MMU is absolute and since there >>> are typically less mapping registers than packets on a ring, >>> the need for deferred operation seems quite acceptable if the >>> alternative is, again, failure to operate. >>>=20 >>=20 >> I'm not against you upping the bounce buffer limit for a particular = platform, but it's still unclear to me if (given bug-free drivers) it's = worth the effort to defer a load rather than just drop the packet and = let the stack retry it. One question that would be good to answer is = wether the failed load is happening in the RX to TX path. >=20 > RX path I believe. >=20 I'm not clear why you even need bounce buffers for RX. The chip = supports 64bit addresses with no boundary or alignment restrictions. Scott