Mike, just to remind me, are you running these 82574 adapters with MSIX ? Jack
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jack Vogel <jfvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <sean...@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 <sean...@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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
