Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:37:36 -0800 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>, Jan Koum <jan@whatsapp.com>, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: em driver, 82574L chip, and possibly ASPM Message-ID: <AANLkTinD0q3r85fAj0Kju9Vc6fT-MVrR1LRczu_XaRW0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> References: <icgd44$89l$1@dough.gmane.org> <1290533941.3173.50.camel@home-yahoo> <4CEC0548.1080801@sentex.net> <AANLkTim82pWyf_X%2Bu72uj8RkWeRUb_4KSQ8B_HpNYsP9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinO1yfN--_K63-yD1LY3wusOF7wB2wwG8DUd5Z4@mail.gmail.com> <4D2C636B.5040003@sentex.net> <AANLkTimFzYZOkwdExm5JPRB7BaN8Am8pPcgrMT0wVZqy@mail.gmail.com> <4D3C4795.40205@sentex.net> <4D42EA74.4090807@sentex.net> <1296590190.2326.6.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com> <AANLkTimdJNV4Hxm6%2Bi3uVa7es9Vu=TDAFBzfUycuM=sZ@mail.gmail.com> <1296591565.2326.7.camel@hitfishpass-lx.corp.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Looks good, except I don't like code #if 0'd out, I'll make an if_em.c to try and send it shortly. Jack On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:05 -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: > > At this point I'm open to any ideas, this sounds like a good one Sean, > > thanks. > > Mike, you want to test this ? > > > > Jack > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 08:10 -0800, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > On 1/23/2011 10:21 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > > On 1/21/2011 4:21 AM, Jan Koum wrote: > > > > One other thing I noticed is that when the nic is in its > > hung state, the > > > > WOL option is gone ? > > > > > > > > e.g > > > > > > > > em1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> > > metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > > > > options=19b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4> > > > > ether 00:15:17:ed:68:a4 > > > > > > > > vs > > > > > > > > > > > > em1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> > > metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > > > > > > > > options=219b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC> > > > > ether 00:15:17:ed:68:a4 > > > > > > > > > Another hang last night :( > > > > > > Whats really strange is that the WOL_MAGIC and TSO4 got > > turned back on > > > somehow ? I had explicitly turned it off, but when the NIC > > was in its > > > bad state > > > > > > em1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> > > metric 0 mtu 1500 > > > > > options=2198<VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,WOL_MAGIC> > > > > > > ... its back on along with TSO? Not sure if its coincidence > > or a side > > > effect or what. For now, I have had to re-purpose this nic > > to something > > > else. > > > > > > debug info shows > > > > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: Interface is RUNNING and > > INACTIVE > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: hw tdh = 625, hw tdt = > > 625 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: hw rdh = 903, hw rdt = > > 903 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: Tx Queue Status = 0 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: TX descriptors avail = > > 1024 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: Tx Descriptors avail > > failure = 0 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: RX discarded packets = > > 0 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: RX Next to Check = 903 > > > Jan 28 00:25:10 backup3 kernel: em1: RX Next to Refresh = > > 904 > > > Jan 28 00:25:27 backup3 kernel: em1: link state changed to > > DOWN > > > Jan 28 00:25:30 backup3 kernel: em1: link state changed to > > UP > > > > > > > > > ---Mike > > > > > > > > I'm trying to get some more testing done regarding my > > suggestions around > > the OACTIVE assertions in the driver. More or less, it looks > > like > > intense periods of activity can push the driver into the > > OACTIVE hold > > off state and the logic isn't quite right in igb(4) or em(4) > > to handle > > it. > > > > I suspect that something like this modification to igb(4) may > > be > > required for em(4). > > > > Comments? > > > > Sean > > > > > Does the logic I've implemented look sane? > > Sean > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinD0q3r85fAj0Kju9Vc6fT-MVrR1LRczu_XaRW0>