> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-boun...@osuosl.org] On Behalf
> Of Benjamin Poirier
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 11:36 AM
> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 5/5] e1000e: Avoid receiver overrun
> interrupt bursts
>
> When e1000e_poll() is not fast enough to keep up with incoming traffic, the
> adapter (when operating in msix mode) raises the Other interrupt to signal
> Receiver Overrun.
>
> This is a double problem because 1) at the moment e1000_msix_other()
> assumes that it is only called in case of Link Status Change and 2) if the
> condition persists, the interrupt is repeatedly raised again in quick
> succession.
>
> Ideally we would configure the Other interrupt to not be raised in case of
> receiver overrun but this doesn't seem possible on this adapter. Instead,
> we handle the first part of the problem by reverting to the practice of
> reading ICR in the other interrupt handler, like before commit 16ecba59bc33
> ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt"). Thanks to commit
> 0a8047ac68e5 ("e1000e: Fix msi-x interrupt automask") which cleared IAME
> from CTRL_EXT, reading ICR doesn't interfere with RxQ0, TxQ0 interrupts
> anymore. We handle the second part of the problem by not re-enabling the
> Other interrupt right away when there is overrun. Instead, we wait until
> traffic subsides, napi polling mode is exited and interrupts are
> re-enabled.
>
> Reported-by: Lennart Sorensen <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
> Fixes: 16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt")
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoir...@suse.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/defines.h | 1 +
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 33
> +++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
I get an error and a few warnings out of checkpatch from this, but I think the
error is false (thinking the reference to a commit in the description is this
commit, a fixes commit or something like that) and I'm more concerned with the
fix than the warnings, so...
Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.br...@intel.com>
Here is the checkpatch output in case anyone has a different opinion on the
severity:
-------------
u1484:[0]/usr/src/kernels/next-queue> git format-patch d81d1e6 -1
--stdout|./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1>
("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 0a8047ac68e5 ("e1000e: Fix msi-x interrupt
automask")'
#20:
0a8047ac68e5 ("e1000e: Fix msi-x interrupt automask") which cleared IAME
WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
#73: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c:1931:
+ if (!test_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->state)) {
+ mod_timer(&adapter->watchdog_timer, jiffies + 1);
+ }
WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
#83: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c:1936:
+ if (enable && !test_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->state)) {
ew32(IMS, E1000_IMS_OTHER);
}
total: 1 errors, 2 warnings, 0 checks, 59 lines checked
NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
Your patch has style problems, please review.
NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
u1484:[0]/usr/src/kernels/next-queue>
