From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 10 02:05:38 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 3E25916A403 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:05:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.234]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7D913C471 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:05:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so1032884nzh for ; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:05:37 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=a7iReR5MReQgwWK5mzmRxx0uDe4beosmJIuVVV+u7D3nlq1GUlf7plVvfuY0Ih/D3VUKOKu9xMZzyO4rfEKA5DL2BQyD8ApLKEzqikLbg4N0rSMwkiRKltzZ2rFyV43Q4TNcIqKHGj8HfBr9upBcxy0LHM3F34QzYvyswM6I69Q= Received: by 10.35.84.16 with SMTP id m16mr26819384pyl.1171073137448; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 15sm20301877nzo.2007.02.09.18.05.34; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l1A26qVN051254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:06:52 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l1A26oga051253; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:06:50 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:06:50 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: Mark Atkinson Message-ID: <20070210020650.GA51110@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20070110120731.GA1515@shark.localdomain> <200701100910.13167.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070110155331.GA2762@shark.localdomain> <20070111004044.GA33964@cdnetworks.co.kr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nve related LOR triggered by lots of small packets, and a hard hang X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:05:38 -0000 On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:23:41AM -0800, Mark Atkinson wrote: > Mark Atkinson wrote: > > > Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:53:31PM +0300, Sergey Zaharchenko wrote: > >> > Hello John! > >> > > >> > Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:10:12AM -0500 you wrote: > >> > [snip] > >> > > Have you tried using nfe(4)? :) > >> > > >> > Now I have, and it works just fine, thanks (I somehow thought nfe was > >> > specific to some platform). Why isn't it the default? Smaller range of > >> > hardware supported? > >> > > >> > >> AFAIK, nfe(4) supports more hardwares than that of nve(4). > >> Try overhauled nfe(4) in the following URL. > >> > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfe.c > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfereg.h > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfevar.h > >> > >> The patch fixed serveral bugs in nfe(4) and it should perform better > >> than nve(4). The following hardware features are supported. > >> o TSO > >> o Tx/Rx IP/TCP/UDP checksum offload > >> o VLAN hardware tag insertion/stripping > >> o Jumbo frame(up to 9100 bytes) > >> > >> It seems that the hardware supports MSI/MSI-X too but I don't have > >> nForce hardwares that supports MSI/MSI-X so it's hard to implement/ > >> experiment it. Accoring to the Shigeaki Tagashira, the author of > >> FreeBSD nfe(4), his hardware claims to support 8 messages. I've > >> checked Linux forcedeth driver to get hardware information for > >> MSI/MSI-X but it I cound't understand the details. :-( > >> > > > > I've been running into this hardlock LOR a lot recently on a TYAN 2895 > > (K8WE) based box. So I tried your patch to nfe on today's -current. I > > tried a couple of small packet ping floods to a lan neighbor under nfe and > > it survived. Did fine with some large NFS over TCP transfers as well. > > However, I'll leave it up and running to see if it keels over in the > > future. > > > > pci128: on pcib6 > > pci128: physical bus=128 > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x005e, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=0, func=0 > > class=05-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 > > cmdreg=0x0006, statreg=0x00b0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x00 (0 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x00d3, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=1, func=0 > > class=05-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=1 > > cmdreg=0x000f, statreg=0x00a0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x00 (0 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) > > map[14]: type 1, range 32, base 0xd8400000, size 12, enabled > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x0057, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=10, func=0 > > class=06-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0 > > cmdreg=0x0007, statreg=0x00b0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x01 (250 ns), maxlat=0x14 (5000 ns) > > intpin=a, irq=5 > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D1 D2 D3 current D0 > > map[10]: type 1, range 32, base 0xd8401000, size 12, enabled > > map[14]: type 4, range 32, base 0x3000, size 3, enabled > > pcib6: matched entry for 128.10.INTA (src \\_SB_.PCI1.LMAC:0) > > pci_link22: Picked IRQ 52 with weight 0 > > ioapic3: Changing polarity for pin 20 to high > > pcib6: slot 10 INTA routed to irq 52 via \\_SB_.PCI1.LMAC > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x005d, revid=0xa3 > > bus=128, slot=14, func=0 > > class=06-04-00, hdrtype=0x01, mfdev=0 > > cmdreg=0x0107, statreg=0x0010, cachelnsz=16 (dwords) > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x04 (1000 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns) > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0 > > MSI supports 2 messages, 64 bit > > pci128: at device 0.0 (no driver attached) > > pci128: at device 1.0 (no driver attached) > > nfe1: port 0x3000-0x3007 > > mem 0xd8 > > 401000-0xd8401fff irq 52 at device 10.0 on pci128 > > nfe1: Reserved 0x1000 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at 0xd8401000 > > nfe1: bpf attached > > e1: Ethernet address: 00:e0:81:57:d9:af > > miibus1: on nfe1 > > e1000phy1: PHY 1 on miibus1 > > e1000phy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, > > 1000baseTX-FDX, auto > > ioapic3: routing intpin 20 (PCI IRQ 52) to vector 57 > > nfe1: [MPSAFE] > > nfe1: [FAST] > > After a day of running this, it became obvious the nfe driver patch has some > sort of issue, at least with -current and this board. Although NFS speeds > seemed reasonable, transfers over TCP from a webserver suffered some sort > of very noticeable pause/send/pause/send... type problem that reduced > transfers to about 6Kbyte/s. This problem went away when putting nve back > into the kernel and retrying the same scenerio. > Would you explain the scenario to reproduce it on my box? How about disabling checksum offload? -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon