Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:27:42 -0800 From: Sean Bruno <sbruno@ignoranthack.me> To: "Pieper, Jeffrey E" <jeffrey.e.pieper@intel.com>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Intel 82574L (em) Message-ID: <54CFB38E.1040408@ignoranthack.me> In-Reply-To: <2A35EA60C3C77D438915767F458D6568806C25DE@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <54CBF396.3090903@ignoranthack.me> <20150131010014.GB19333@strugglingcoder.info> <CAFOYbcmRR_1uZsgc3CVBd52K-13U_=EZnqy%2BXPPUoCdfd8wUSQ@mail.gmail.com> <2A35EA60C3C77D438915767F458D6568806C25DE@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 02/02/15 08:42, Pieper, Jeffrey E wrote: > Iirc, we experienced issues with 82574L, where the interface will > hang/die. This is resolved in both FreeBSD and Linux by forcing > ASPM off and disabling MSIX. > > Jeff > > Are you running tests with the multi-queue implementation in the h/w and driver turned on? sean > ----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Jack Vogel > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 8:30 PM To: hiren panchasara Cc: > FreeBSD Net Subject: Re: Intel 82574L (em) > > Yup, I wrote that :) > > Sean, I will check around to see if anything may have changed in > that regard. > > Jack > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:00 PM, hiren panchasara < > hiren@strugglingcoder.info> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Sean Bruno wrote: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> >> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82574l-gbe-controller-datasheet.pdf >>> >>> >> According to 7.1.11, this device does indeed have 2 queues for stuff and >>> or things. So, basic RSS would be possible in something like >>> an Atom >> box. >>> >>> I note that the em(4) driver intentionally disables this on >>> initialization. I'm up for some science on my new shiny, soon >>> to be router box. Any reason not to default to 1 queue and >>> allow loader.conf to raise it to 2? >> >> Intel folks know better but it seems this is hartwell. >> >> em_setup_msix() in very start says: >> >> /* ** Setup MSI/X for Hartwell: tests have shown ** use of two >> queues to be unstable, and to ** provide no great gain anyway, so >> we simply ** seperate the interrupts and use a single queue. */ >> >> Things may have changed now. I guess you can try enabling it and >> find out :-) >> >> cheers, Hiren >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJUz7OLXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRCQUFENDYzMkU3MTIxREU4RDIwOTk3REQx MjAxRUZDQTFFNzI3RTY0AAoJEBIB78oecn5kYn0IALVCtNNmWMWIRLlbcVGDg9wo KUbKpvN4UBxOuAvsav8Hussxvy+gh4UXZvgqZ2opTElRrPiUb/iGXa967LWsRaTB TrbvnFE7rJp2xGVlG+rsID+wSdsEAX/isTJWOvpWIqPEULaFvtFh/LUPUrux51Ca SPNzJ+LAh/vWk4sOXN+4PxICiaprlRDs0HF/Mqh5mh8W5TwE3OZy74js7izhNqZS NgowzDyYOq6uhxHZRAC5/GUdpX+ybyCRFZgqKBrNy8BYZV9f+wts2vh7IzwDBSE+ 0ikcM2QGunsr9HH2mnermE2lYF4QKL1Zm8m0mh+TNNIA1O/8Qi4mbE1uMdrzJv4= =9wHn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54CFB38E.1040408>