Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:17:46 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, ricera10@gmail.com, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r267935 - head/sys/dev/e1000 (with work around?) Message-ID: <5414DEAA.1060009@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <1737288805.35881978.1410642408202.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <1737288805.35881978.1410642408202.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Eric, Any chance you can look at this em driver bug in Jack's absence ? ---Mike On 9/13/2014 5:06 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > Mike Tansca wrote: >> On 9/12/2014 7:33 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> I wrote: >>>> The patches are in 10.1. I thought his report said 10.0 in the message. >>>> >>>> If Mike is running a recent stable/10 or releng/10.1, then it has been >>>> patched for this and NFS should work with TSO enabled. If it doesn't, >>>> then something else is broken. >>> Oops, I looked and I see Mike was testing r270560 (which would have both >>> the patches). I don't have an explanation why TSO and 64K rsize, wsize >>> would cause a hang, but does appear it will exist in 10.1 unless it >>> gets resolved. >>> >>> Mike, one difference is that, even with the patches the driver will be >>> copying the transmit mbuf list via m_defrag() to 32 MCLBYTE clusters >>> when using 64K rsize, wsize. >>> If you can reproduce the hang, you might want to look at how many mbuf >>> clusters are allocated. If you've hit the limit, then I think that >>> would explain it. >> >> I have been running the test for a few hrs now and no lockups of the >> nic, so doing the nfs mount with -orsize=32768,wsize=32768 certainly > ? seems to work around the lockup. How do I check the mbuf clusters ? > > Btw, in the past when reducing the rsize,wsize has fixed a problem that > isn't fixed by disabling TSO, it has been a problem w.r.t. receiving a > burst of ethernet packets. > I believe this may be a problem with either the receive ring size or > interrupt latency (testers have reported cases where changing the way > the device driver uses interrupts have fixed the problem so that it > worked with 64K rsize, wsize). > > I have no familiarity with this hardware/driver so I can't suggest > anything specific to try except maybe how interrupts are handled, > if the driver has a sysctl for that. > > rick > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5414DEAA.1060009>