Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:43:45PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:50:38PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > >Since v2.4.33 should be out RSN, my opinion is that applying the > > >one-liner to fix the bringup problem for now is more prudent.. > > > > > > > > > > > It's attached. Untested, but it should work. Just the relevant hunk from > > the 0.42 patch. > > I will test it tomorrow morning. John might be interested in merging it too, > as I have checked today that RHEL3 was affected by the same problem (rmmod > followed by modprobe). > > > But I would disagree with waiting for 2.3.34 for a full backport: > > 0.30 basically doesn't work, thus the update to 0.50 would be a big step > > forward - it can't be worse that 0.30. > > Seconded ! > Manfred, if you have some corner cases in mind, are aware of anything which > might sometimes break, or have a few experimental patches to try, I'm OK for > a few tests while I have the machine (it's SMP BTW). Alright then - will apply Willy's backport. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:50:38PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > >Since v2.4.33 should be out RSN, my opinion is that applying the > >one-liner to fix the bringup problem for now is more prudent.. > > > > > > > It's attached. Untested, but it should work. Just the relevant hunk from > the 0.42 patch. I will test it tomorrow morning. John might be interested in merging it too, as I have checked today that RHEL3 was affected by the same problem (rmmod followed by modprobe). > But I would disagree with waiting for 2.3.34 for a full backport: > 0.30 basically doesn't work, thus the update to 0.50 would be a big step > forward - it can't be worse that 0.30. Seconded ! Manfred, if you have some corner cases in mind, are aware of anything which might sometimes break, or have a few experimental patches to try, I'm OK for a few tests while I have the machine (it's SMP BTW). > -- >Manfred Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50
Marcelo Tosatti wrote: Since v2.4.33 should be out RSN, my opinion is that applying the one-liner to fix the bringup problem for now is more prudent.. It's attached. Untested, but it should work. Just the relevant hunk from the 0.42 patch. But I would disagree with waiting for 2.3.34 for a full backport: 0.30 basically doesn't work, thus the update to 0.50 would be a big step forward - it can't be worse that 0.30. -- Manfred --- 2.6/drivers/net/forcedeth.c 2005-08-14 11:17:03.0 +0200 +++ build-2.6/drivers/net/forcedeth.c 2005-08-14 11:16:53.0 +0200 @@ -2178,6 +2180,9 @@ writel(NVREG_MIISTAT_MASK, base + NvRegMIIStatus); dprintk(KERN_INFO "startup: got 0x%08x.\n", miistat); } + /* set linkspeed to invalid value, thus force nv_update_linkspeed +* to init hw */ + np->linkspeed = 0; ret = nv_update_linkspeed(dev); nv_start_rx(dev); nv_start_tx(dev);
Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:54:38AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:32AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > Hi Willy, > > > > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > >I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and > > >incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides > > >VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible > > >changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX > > >support). > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a > > minimal one-liner fix. > > Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization. > > Or to be more accurate: > ># modprobe > ># ifup > > works. > > But > ># modprobe > ># ifup > ># ifdown > ># ifup > > causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And > > recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the > > initialization. > > That's what I read in one of the changelogs, but I'm not sure at all that > it's what happened, because I had the problem after an ifup only. What I > was doing with this box was pure performance tests which drew me to compare > the broadcom and nforce performance. My tests measured 3 creteria : > > - number of HTTP/1.0 hits/s > - maximum data rate > - maximum packets/s > > on tg3, I got around 45 khits/s, 949 Mbps (TCP, =1.0 Gbps on wire) and > 1.05 Mpps receive (I want to build a high speed load-balancer and a sniffer). > This was stable. > > On the nforce, I tried with the hits/s first because it's a good indication > of hardware-based and driver-based optimizations. It reached 18 khits/s with > a lot of difficulty and the machine was stuck at 100% of one CPU. But it ran > for a few minutes like this. Then I tried data rate (which is the same test > with 1MB objects), and it failed after about 2 seconds and few megabytes (or > hundreds of megabytes) transferred. > > I had to reboot to get it to work again. And I'm fairly sure that I did not > do down/up this time as well, but the test came to the same end. > > That's why I'm not sure at all that the one-liner will be enough. > > Moreover, after the update, I reached the same performance as with the > broadcom, with a slight improvement on packet reception (1.09 Mpps), and > low CPU usage (15%). So basically, the upgrade rendered the driver from > barely usable for SSH to very performant. > > > Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport > > patch? > > I would really vote for the full backport, and I can break it into pieces > if needed (I have them at hand, just have to re-inject the changelogs). > However, I have separate changes from 0.42 to 0.50, because I started > with your 0.30-0.42 backport patch. > > I have this machine till the end of the week, so I can perform other tests > if you're interested in trying specific things. Since v2.4.33 should be out RSN, my opinion is that applying the one-liner to fix the bringup problem for now is more prudent.. Full patch could go into v2.4.34... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:32AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > >I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and > >incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides > >VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible > >changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX > >support). > > > > > > > I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a > minimal one-liner fix. > Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization. > Or to be more accurate: ># modprobe ># ifup > works. > But ># modprobe ># ifup ># ifdown ># ifup > causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And > recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the > initialization. That's what I read in one of the changelogs, but I'm not sure at all that it's what happened, because I had the problem after an ifup only. What I was doing with this box was pure performance tests which drew me to compare the broadcom and nforce performance. My tests measured 3 creteria : - number of HTTP/1.0 hits/s - maximum data rate - maximum packets/s on tg3, I got around 45 khits/s, 949 Mbps (TCP, =1.0 Gbps on wire) and 1.05 Mpps receive (I want to build a high speed load-balancer and a sniffer). This was stable. On the nforce, I tried with the hits/s first because it's a good indication of hardware-based and driver-based optimizations. It reached 18 khits/s with a lot of difficulty and the machine was stuck at 100% of one CPU. But it ran for a few minutes like this. Then I tried data rate (which is the same test with 1MB objects), and it failed after about 2 seconds and few megabytes (or hundreds of megabytes) transferred. I had to reboot to get it to work again. And I'm fairly sure that I did not do down/up this time as well, but the test came to the same end. That's why I'm not sure at all that the one-liner will be enough. Moreover, after the update, I reached the same performance as with the broadcom, with a slight improvement on packet reception (1.09 Mpps), and low CPU usage (15%). So basically, the upgrade rendered the driver from barely usable for SSH to very performant. > Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport > patch? I would really vote for the full backport, and I can break it into pieces if needed (I have them at hand, just have to re-inject the changelogs). However, I have separate changes from 0.42 to 0.50, because I started with your 0.30-0.42 backport patch. I have this machine till the end of the week, so I can perform other tests if you're interested in trying specific things. > -- >Manfred Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50
Hi Willy, Willy Tarreau wrote: I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX support). I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a minimal one-liner fix. Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization. Or to be more accurate: # modprobe # ifup works. But # modprobe # ifup # ifdown # ifup causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the initialization. Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport patch? -- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
