Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 17:48:04 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: > Sami Farin wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 15:59:30 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: > >>Sami Farin wrote: > >... > >>>I do "ethtool -K eth0 tso off" now and check if I get the hang again. =) > >>I'm unsure whether v7.2.x already automatically disables TSO for 100mbit > >>speed link, probably not. It should. > > > >It disabled it but I enabled it just for fun. > > > >>Please try our updated driver from http://e1000.sf.net/ (7.3.20) against > >>the same kernel. There are some changes with regard to the ich8/TSO > >>driver that might affect this, so re-testing is worth it for us. > > > >I now run 7.3.20-NAPI. > > > >BTW. the Makefile is buggy: it does not get CC from kernel's Makefile. > >Using wrong compiler can cause for example a reboot when loading the > >module. > >(At least that's what happened with gcc-2.95.3 vs 3.x.x some years ago...) > > I'll look into that, do you have any suggestions? loop-AES has some hacks which figure out the correct CC http://heanet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/loop-aes/loop-AES-v3.1e.tar.bz2 > >>also, please always include the full dmesg output. Feel free to CC > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] on this. > > > >I enabled TSO again. I write again if TSO causes problems. > > There are known problems with that configuration, that's why the newer > drivers disable TSO for 10/100 speeds. > > do you really think that you can see the performance gain fro musing TSO at No. I was thinking that if TSO does not work at 100, why 1000 would be any better. But I can't test at 1000 speeds right now. But if you say driver is supposed to hang at 100 speed, I believe you. Ohh... that was fast. 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303056500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303081500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303082500 <4> TDH <48> 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303083500 <4> TDT 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303084500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303085500 <4> next_to_clean<48> 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303086500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303087500 <4> time_stamp <9e332d8> 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303088500 <4> next_to_watch<49> 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303088500 <4> jiffies <9e336df> 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303094500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302826500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302850500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302851500 <4> TDH <48> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302852500 <4> TDT <34> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302853500 <4> next_to_use <34> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302854500 <4> next_to_clean<48> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302855500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302855500 <4> time_stamp <9e332d8> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302856500 <4> next_to_watch<49> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302857500 <4> jiffies <9e33ac7> 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302862500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> ... > those speeds anyway? we don't ;). In any case you should keep TSO off for > 10/100 speeds. ... > >PS. please do not delete Mail-Followup-To header field. > > I hit "reply-all" and I have no control over which field thunderbird I hit list-reply. > removes or adds. I have to manually add your e-mail address too? No. > Maybe your mail client is broken instead? No. > Don't you want to receive replies? Yes. I am subscribed to the mailing list. That's why my email was not in Mail-Followup-To. But if your thunderbird does not support Mail-Followup-To, just ignore it. I can add the header field manually. -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 15:59:30 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: > Sami Farin wrote: ... > >I do "ethtool -K eth0 tso off" now and check if I get the hang again. =) > > I'm unsure whether v7.2.x already automatically disables TSO for 100mbit > speed link, probably not. It should. It disabled it but I enabled it just for fun. > Please try our updated driver from http://e1000.sf.net/ (7.3.20) against > the same kernel. There are some changes with regard to the ich8/TSO driver > that might affect this, so re-testing is worth it for us. I now run 7.3.20-NAPI. BTW. the Makefile is buggy: it does not get CC from kernel's Makefile. Using wrong compiler can cause for example a reboot when loading the module. (At least that's what happened with gcc-2.95.3 vs 3.x.x some years ago...) > also, please always include the full dmesg output. Feel free to CC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this. I enabled TSO again. I write again if TSO causes problems. Why shouldn't it work with 100 Mbps? Not that it would help a lot, but I ask this on principle. /* disable TSO for pcie and 10/100 speeds, to avoid * some hardware issues */ Issues on the motherboard or the NIC? 2007-01-10 02:39:51.889908500 <6>ACPI: PCI interrupt for device :00:19.0 disabled 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545194500 <6>Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-NAPI 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545198500 <6>Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation. 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545395500 <6>ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:19.0[A] -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545435500 <7>PCI: Setting latency timer of device :00:19.0 to 64 2007-01-10 02:39:54.562905500 <6>e1000: :00:19.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 00:19:d1:00:5f:01 2007-01-10 02:39:54.638093500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 2007-01-10 02:40:07.513619500 <6>ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614768500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614770500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614771500 <6>ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready 2007-01-10 02:40:09.271631500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_reset: Hardware Error 2007-01-10 02:40:10.93500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:10.930049500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO PS. please do not delete Mail-Followup-To header field. -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
Sami Farin wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 15:59:30 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: Sami Farin wrote: ... I do "ethtool -K eth0 tso off" now and check if I get the hang again. =) I'm unsure whether v7.2.x already automatically disables TSO for 100mbit speed link, probably not. It should. It disabled it but I enabled it just for fun. Please try our updated driver from http://e1000.sf.net/ (7.3.20) against the same kernel. There are some changes with regard to the ich8/TSO driver that might affect this, so re-testing is worth it for us. I now run 7.3.20-NAPI. BTW. the Makefile is buggy: it does not get CC from kernel's Makefile. Using wrong compiler can cause for example a reboot when loading the module. (At least that's what happened with gcc-2.95.3 vs 3.x.x some years ago...) I'll look into that, do you have any suggestions? also, please always include the full dmesg output. Feel free to CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this. I enabled TSO again. I write again if TSO causes problems. There are known problems with that configuration, that's why the newer drivers disable TSO for 10/100 speeds. do you really think that you can see the performance gain fro musing TSO at those speeds anyway? we don't ;). In any case you should keep TSO off for 10/100 speeds. Why shouldn't it work with 100 Mbps? Not that it would help a lot, but I ask this on principle. /* disable TSO for pcie and 10/100 speeds, to avoid * some hardware issues */ Issues on the motherboard or the NIC? we (the e1000 team) don't write drivers for the motherboard, but only for the NIC component, so I hope that answers your question. 2007-01-10 02:39:51.889908500 <6>ACPI: PCI interrupt for device :00:19.0 disabled 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545194500 <6>Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-NAPI 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545198500 <6>Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation. 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545395500 <6>ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:19.0[A] -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545435500 <7>PCI: Setting latency timer of device :00:19.0 to 64 2007-01-10 02:39:54.562905500 <6>e1000: :00:19.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 00:19:d1:00:5f:01 2007-01-10 02:39:54.638093500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 2007-01-10 02:40:07.513619500 <6>ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614768500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614770500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614771500 <6>ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready 2007-01-10 02:40:09.271631500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_reset: Hardware Error 2007-01-10 02:40:10.93500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:10.930049500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO PS. please do not delete Mail-Followup-To header field. I hit "reply-all" and I have no control over which field thunderbird removes or adds. I have to manually add your e-mail address too? Maybe your mail client is broken instead? Don't you want to receive replies? Cheers, Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
Sami Farin wrote: Linux 2.6.19.1 SMP on Pentium D, Intel DQ965GF mobo. Got this while bittorrenting knoppix: 2007-01-09 22:53:40.020693500 <4>NETFILTER drop IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:19:d1:00:5f:01:00:05:00:1c:58:1c:08:00 SRC=83.46.5.76 DST=80.223.106.128 LEN=121 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=112 ID=53273 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=3 CODE=3 [SRC=80.223.106.128 DST=192.168.1.37 LEN=93 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=6881 DPT=6895 LEN=73 ] 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660249500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660253500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660254500 <4> TDH <3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660255500 <4> TDT 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660255500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660256500 <4> next_to_clean<3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660257500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660258500 <4> time_stamp <8c3b8e4> 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660259500 <4> next_to_watch<3f> 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660274500 <4> jiffies <8c3bf13> 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660275500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660365500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660368500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660369500 <4> TDH <3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660370500 <4> TDT 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660370500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660371500 <4> next_to_clean<3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660372500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660373500 <4> time_stamp <8c3b8e4> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660374500 <4> next_to_watch<3f> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660389500 <4> jiffies <8c3c2fb> 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660390500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660086500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660089500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660090500 <4> TDH <3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660091500 <4> TDT 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660092500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660093500 <4> next_to_clean<3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660093500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660094500 <4> time_stamp <8c3b8e4> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660095500 <4> next_to_watch<3f> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660110500 <4> jiffies <8c3c6e3> 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660111500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660001500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660004500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660005500 <4> TDH <3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660006500 <4> TDT 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660007500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660008500 <4> next_to_clean<3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660009500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660009500 <4> time_stamp <8c3b8e4> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660010500 <4> next_to_watch<3f> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660026500 <4> jiffies <8c3cacb> 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660027500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659906500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659909500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659909500 <4> TDH <3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659910500 <4> TDT 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659911500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659912500 <4> next_to_clean<3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659913500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659914500 <4> time_stamp <8c3b8e4> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659915500 <4> next_to_watch<3f> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659930500 <4> jiffies <8c3ceb3> 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659931500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659784500 <3>e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659787500 <4> Tx Queue <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659788500 <4> TDH <3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659788500 <4> TDT 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659789500 <4> next_to_use 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659790500 <4> next_to_clean<3c> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659791500 <4>buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659792500 <4> time_stamp <8c3b8e4> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659793500 <4> next_to_watch<3f> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659807500 <4> jiffies <8c3d29b> 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659808500 <4> next_to_watch.status <0> 2007-01-09 22:53:47.130361500 <6>NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out 2007-01-09 22:53:48.771500500 <6>e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex 2007-01-09 22:53:54.838031500 <4>NETFILTER drop IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:19:d1:00:5f:01:00:05:00:1c:58:1c:08:00 SRC=84.49.68.15 DST=80.223.106.128 LEN=56 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=142 ID=55046 PROTO=ICMP
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
Sami Farin wrote: Linux 2.6.19.1 SMP on Pentium D, Intel DQ965GF mobo. Got this while bittorrenting knoppix: 2007-01-09 22:53:40.020693500 4NETFILTER drop IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:19:d1:00:5f:01:00:05:00:1c:58:1c:08:00 SRC=83.46.5.76 DST=80.223.106.128 LEN=121 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=112 ID=53273 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=3 CODE=3 [SRC=80.223.106.128 DST=192.168.1.37 LEN=93 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=45 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=6881 DPT=6895 LEN=73 ] 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660249500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660253500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660254500 4 TDH 3c 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660255500 4 TDT ca 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660255500 4 next_to_use ca 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660256500 4 next_to_clean3c 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660257500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660258500 4 time_stamp 8c3b8e4 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660259500 4 next_to_watch3f 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660274500 4 jiffies 8c3bf13 2007-01-09 22:53:41.660275500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660365500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660368500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660369500 4 TDH 3c 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660370500 4 TDT ca 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660370500 4 next_to_use ca 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660371500 4 next_to_clean3c 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660372500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660373500 4 time_stamp 8c3b8e4 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660374500 4 next_to_watch3f 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660389500 4 jiffies 8c3c2fb 2007-01-09 22:53:42.660390500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660086500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660089500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660090500 4 TDH 3c 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660091500 4 TDT ca 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660092500 4 next_to_use ca 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660093500 4 next_to_clean3c 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660093500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660094500 4 time_stamp 8c3b8e4 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660095500 4 next_to_watch3f 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660110500 4 jiffies 8c3c6e3 2007-01-09 22:53:43.660111500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660001500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660004500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660005500 4 TDH 3c 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660006500 4 TDT ca 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660007500 4 next_to_use ca 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660008500 4 next_to_clean3c 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660009500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660009500 4 time_stamp 8c3b8e4 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660010500 4 next_to_watch3f 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660026500 4 jiffies 8c3cacb 2007-01-09 22:53:44.660027500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659906500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659909500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659909500 4 TDH 3c 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659910500 4 TDT ca 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659911500 4 next_to_use ca 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659912500 4 next_to_clean3c 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659913500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659914500 4 time_stamp 8c3b8e4 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659915500 4 next_to_watch3f 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659930500 4 jiffies 8c3ceb3 2007-01-09 22:53:45.659931500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659784500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659787500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659788500 4 TDH 3c 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659788500 4 TDT ca 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659789500 4 next_to_use ca 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659790500 4 next_to_clean3c 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659791500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659792500 4 time_stamp 8c3b8e4 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659793500 4 next_to_watch3f 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659807500 4 jiffies 8c3d29b 2007-01-09 22:53:46.659808500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-09 22:53:47.130361500 6NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out 2007-01-09 22:53:48.771500500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex 2007-01-09 22:53:54.838031500 4NETFILTER drop IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:19:d1:00:5f:01:00:05:00:1c:58:1c:08:00 SRC=84.49.68.15 DST=80.223.106.128 LEN=56 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=142 ID=55046 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=3 CODE=1 [SRC=80.223.106.128 DST=10.0.0.2 LEN=91 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=48 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=6881 DPT=4412 LEN=71 ] ...and... 2007-01-09 23:40:42.311352500 4NETFILTER drop IN=eth0 OUT=
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
Sami Farin wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 15:59:30 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: Sami Farin wrote: ... I do ethtool -K eth0 tso off now and check if I get the hang again. =) I'm unsure whether v7.2.x already automatically disables TSO for 100mbit speed link, probably not. It should. It disabled it but I enabled it just for fun. Please try our updated driver from http://e1000.sf.net/ (7.3.20) against the same kernel. There are some changes with regard to the ich8/TSO driver that might affect this, so re-testing is worth it for us. I now run 7.3.20-NAPI. BTW. the Makefile is buggy: it does not get CC from kernel's Makefile. Using wrong compiler can cause for example a reboot when loading the module. (At least that's what happened with gcc-2.95.3 vs 3.x.x some years ago...) I'll look into that, do you have any suggestions? also, please always include the full dmesg output. Feel free to CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this. I enabled TSO again. I write again if TSO causes problems. There are known problems with that configuration, that's why the newer drivers disable TSO for 10/100 speeds. do you really think that you can see the performance gain fro musing TSO at those speeds anyway? we don't ;). In any case you should keep TSO off for 10/100 speeds. Why shouldn't it work with 100 Mbps? Not that it would help a lot, but I ask this on principle. /* disable TSO for pcie and 10/100 speeds, to avoid * some hardware issues */ Issues on the motherboard or the NIC? we (the e1000 team) don't write drivers for the motherboard, but only for the NIC component, so I hope that answers your question. 2007-01-10 02:39:51.889908500 6ACPI: PCI interrupt for device :00:19.0 disabled 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545194500 6Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-NAPI 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545198500 6Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation. 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545395500 6ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:19.0[A] - GSI 20 (level, low) - IRQ 22 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545435500 7PCI: Setting latency timer of device :00:19.0 to 64 2007-01-10 02:39:54.562905500 6e1000: :00:19.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 00:19:d1:00:5f:01 2007-01-10 02:39:54.638093500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 2007-01-10 02:40:07.513619500 6ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614768500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614770500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614771500 6ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready 2007-01-10 02:40:09.271631500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_reset: Hardware Error 2007-01-10 02:40:10.93500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:10.930049500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO PS. please do not delete Mail-Followup-To header field. I hit reply-all and I have no control over which field thunderbird removes or adds. I have to manually add your e-mail address too? Maybe your mail client is broken instead? Don't you want to receive replies? Cheers, Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 15:59:30 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: Sami Farin wrote: ... I do ethtool -K eth0 tso off now and check if I get the hang again. =) I'm unsure whether v7.2.x already automatically disables TSO for 100mbit speed link, probably not. It should. It disabled it but I enabled it just for fun. Please try our updated driver from http://e1000.sf.net/ (7.3.20) against the same kernel. There are some changes with regard to the ich8/TSO driver that might affect this, so re-testing is worth it for us. I now run 7.3.20-NAPI. BTW. the Makefile is buggy: it does not get CC from kernel's Makefile. Using wrong compiler can cause for example a reboot when loading the module. (At least that's what happened with gcc-2.95.3 vs 3.x.x some years ago...) also, please always include the full dmesg output. Feel free to CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this. I enabled TSO again. I write again if TSO causes problems. Why shouldn't it work with 100 Mbps? Not that it would help a lot, but I ask this on principle. /* disable TSO for pcie and 10/100 speeds, to avoid * some hardware issues */ Issues on the motherboard or the NIC? 2007-01-10 02:39:51.889908500 6ACPI: PCI interrupt for device :00:19.0 disabled 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545194500 6Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-NAPI 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545198500 6Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation. 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545395500 6ACPI: PCI Interrupt :00:19.0[A] - GSI 20 (level, low) - IRQ 22 2007-01-10 02:39:54.545435500 7PCI: Setting latency timer of device :00:19.0 to 64 2007-01-10 02:39:54.562905500 6e1000: :00:19.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 00:19:d1:00:5f:01 2007-01-10 02:39:54.638093500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 2007-01-10 02:40:07.513619500 6ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614768500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614770500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO 2007-01-10 02:40:07.614771500 6ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth0: link becomes ready 2007-01-10 02:40:09.271631500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_reset: Hardware Error 2007-01-10 02:40:10.93500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: None 2007-01-10 02:40:10.930049500 6e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO PS. please do not delete Mail-Followup-To header field. -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 17:48:04 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 15:59:30 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: Sami Farin wrote: ... I do ethtool -K eth0 tso off now and check if I get the hang again. =) I'm unsure whether v7.2.x already automatically disables TSO for 100mbit speed link, probably not. It should. It disabled it but I enabled it just for fun. Please try our updated driver from http://e1000.sf.net/ (7.3.20) against the same kernel. There are some changes with regard to the ich8/TSO driver that might affect this, so re-testing is worth it for us. I now run 7.3.20-NAPI. BTW. the Makefile is buggy: it does not get CC from kernel's Makefile. Using wrong compiler can cause for example a reboot when loading the module. (At least that's what happened with gcc-2.95.3 vs 3.x.x some years ago...) I'll look into that, do you have any suggestions? loop-AES has some hacks which figure out the correct CC http://heanet.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/loop-aes/loop-AES-v3.1e.tar.bz2 also, please always include the full dmesg output. Feel free to CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this. I enabled TSO again. I write again if TSO causes problems. There are known problems with that configuration, that's why the newer drivers disable TSO for 10/100 speeds. do you really think that you can see the performance gain fro musing TSO at No. I was thinking that if TSO does not work at 100, why 1000 would be any better. But I can't test at 1000 speeds right now. But if you say driver is supposed to hang at 100 speed, I believe you. Ohh... that was fast. 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303056500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303081500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303082500 4 TDH 48 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303083500 4 TDT fa 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303084500 4 next_to_use fa 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303085500 4 next_to_clean48 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303086500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303087500 4 time_stamp 9e332d8 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303088500 4 next_to_watch49 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303088500 4 jiffies 9e336df 2007-01-10 04:07:42.303094500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302826500 3e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302850500 4 Tx Queue 0 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302851500 4 TDH 48 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302852500 4 TDT 34 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302853500 4 next_to_use 34 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302854500 4 next_to_clean48 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302855500 4buffer_info[next_to_clean] 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302855500 4 time_stamp 9e332d8 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302856500 4 next_to_watch49 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302857500 4 jiffies 9e33ac7 2007-01-10 04:07:43.302862500 4 next_to_watch.status 0 ... those speeds anyway? we don't ;). In any case you should keep TSO off for 10/100 speeds. ... PS. please do not delete Mail-Followup-To header field. I hit reply-all and I have no control over which field thunderbird I hit list-reply. removes or adds. I have to manually add your e-mail address too? No. Maybe your mail client is broken instead? No. Don't you want to receive replies? Yes. I am subscribed to the mailing list. That's why my email was not in Mail-Followup-To. But if your thunderbird does not support Mail-Followup-To, just ignore it. I can add the header field manually. -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
