On Wed, 29 May 2019 09:00:54 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:49 AM Paul Menzel <pmen...@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Eric,
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the quick reply.
> >
> > On 05/28/19 19:18, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On 5/28/19 8:42 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> >
> > >> Occasionally, Linux outputs the message below on the workstation Dell
> > >> OptiPlex 5040 MT.
> > >>
> > >> TCP: net00: Driver has suspect GRO implementation, TCP performance
> > >> may be compromised.
> > >>
> > >> Linux 4.14.55 and Linux 5.2-rc2 show the message, and the WWW also
> > >> gives some hits [1][2].
> > >>
> > >> ```
> > >> $ sudo ethtool -i net00
> > >> driver: e1000e
> > >> version: 3.2.6-k
> > >> firmware-version: 0.8-4
> > >> expansion-rom-version:
> > >> bus-info: 0000:00:1f.6
> > >> supports-statistics: yes
> > >> supports-test: yes
> > >> supports-eeprom-access: yes
> > >> supports-register-dump: yes
> > >> supports-priv-flags: no
> > >> ```
> > >>
> > >> Can the driver e1000e be improved?
> > >>
> > >> Any idea, what triggers this, as I do not see it every boot? Download
> > >> of big files?
> > >>
> > > Maybe the driver/NIC can receive frames bigger than MTU, although this
> > > would be strange.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > index
> > > c61edd023b352123e2a77465782e0d32689e96b0..cb0194f66125bcba427e6e7e3cacf0c93040ef61
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > @@ -150,8 +150,10 @@ static void tcp_gro_dev_warn(struct sock *sk, const
> > > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > dev = dev_get_by_index_rcu(sock_net(sk), skb->skb_iif);
> > > if (!dev || len >= dev->mtu)
> > > - pr_warn("%s: Driver has suspect GRO
> > > implementation, TCP performance may be compromised.\n",
> > > - dev ? dev->name : "Unknown driver");
> > > + pr_warn("%s: Driver has suspect GRO
> > > implementation, TCP performance may be compromised."
> > > + " len %u mtu %u\n",
> > > + dev ? dev->name : "Unknown driver",
> > > + len, dev ? dev->mtu : 0);
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> > I applied your patch on commit 9fb67d643 (Merge tag 'pinctrl-v5.2-2' of
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl):
> >
> > [ 5507.291769] TCP: net00: Driver has suspect GRO implementation, TCP
> > performance may be compromised. len 1856 mtu 1500
>
>
> The 'GRO' in the warning can be probably ignored, since this NIC does
> not implement its own GRO.
>
> You can confirm this with this debug patch:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> index
> 0e09bede42a2bd2c912366a68863a52a22def8ee..014a43ce77e09664bda0568dd118064b006acd67
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> @@ -561,6 +561,9 @@ static void e1000_receive_skb(struct e1000_adapter
> *adapter,
> if (staterr & E1000_RXD_STAT_VP)
> __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, htons(ETH_P_8021Q), tag);
>
> + if (skb->len > netdev->mtu)
> + pr_err_ratelimited("received packet bigger (%u) than
> MTU (%u)\n",
> + skb->len, netdev->mtu);
> napi_gro_receive(&adapter->napi, skb);
> }
I think e1000 is one of those devices that only has receive limit as power of 2.
Therefore frames up to 2K can be received.
There always some confusion in Linux about whether MTU is transmit only or
devices
have to enforce it on receive.
