Re: [E1000-devel] Possible bug in ixgbe-3.19.1 ixgbe_enumerate_functions()

2013-12-24 Thread Tantilov, Emil S
You are correct - there is a bug in the function when used in a VM since all devices appear as part of the same bus, which leads to the driver counting all devices. I'm not sure if there is a good way around this. When the device is direct attached in a VM we may not be able to tell if it's par

Re: [E1000-devel] RSS Configuration in ixgbe (Queue limit?)

2013-12-24 Thread Skidmore, Donald C
> >From: Scott Silverman [mailto:ssilver...@simplexinvestments.com] >Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:03 AM >To: Skidmore, Donald C >Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] RSS Configuration in ixgbe (Queue limit?) > >Don, > >I'm not sure I understand your answer. If t

Re: [E1000-devel] rx_no_dma_resources - Issue on newer hardware (not on older hardware)

2013-12-24 Thread Scott Silverman
I haven't been able to get a system out on the older hardware running CentOS6 yet. In the meantime I did want to confirm that, according to turbostat (and i7z) my cores never leave C0/C1. They also stay at a consistent frequency (3.0-3.2Ghz depending on the processor). I am fairly confident that t

Re: [E1000-devel] RSS Configuration in ixgbe (Queue limit?)

2013-12-24 Thread Scott Silverman
Don, I'm not sure I understand your answer. If the driver can only filter to 16 queues, what are the extra 24 queues in the default 40-queue count doing? They definitely receive, and service, interrupts according to /proc/interrupts. What is the difference between the (up to) 16 queues I can conf

Re: [E1000-devel] RSS Configuration in ixgbe (Queue limit?)

2013-12-24 Thread Skidmore, Donald C
> -Original Message- > From: Scott Silverman [mailto:ssilver...@simplexinvestments.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:28 AM > To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [E1000-devel] RSS Configuration in ixgbe (Queue limit?) > > In attempting to troubleshoot the issue with rin

[E1000-devel] [PATCH 1/2 v2] ixgbe: define IXGBE_MAX_VFS_DRV_LIMIT macro and cleanup const 63

2013-12-24 Thread Ethan Zhao
Because ixgbe driver limit the max number of VF functions could be enabled to 63, so define one macro IXGBE_MAX_VFS_DRV_LIMIT and cleanup the const 63 in code. v2: fix a typo. Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 4 ++-- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe

[E1000-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: set driver_max_VFs should be done before enabling SRIOV

2013-12-24 Thread Ethan Zhao
commit 43dc4e01 Limit number of reported VFs to device specific value It doesn't work and always returns -EBUSY because VFs ware already enabled. ixgbe_enable_sriov() pci_enable_sriov() sriov_enable() { ... .. iov->ctrl |= PCI

[E1000-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ixgbe: define IXGBE_MAX_VFS_DRV_LIMIT macro and cleanup const 63

2013-12-24 Thread Ethan Zhao
Because ixgbe driver limit the max number of VF functions could be enalbed to 63, so define one macro IXGBE_MAX_VFS_DRV_LIMIT and cleanup the const 63 in code. Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 4 ++-- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_sriov.c |

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules

2013-12-24 Thread Ding Tianhong
于 2013/12/24 23:05, Joe Perches 写道: > On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 22:35 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> 于 2013/12/24 22:22, Joe Perches 写道: >>> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 19:27 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules

2013-12-24 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 22:35 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > 于 2013/12/24 22:22, Joe Perches 写道: > > On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 19:27 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > >> Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned > >> and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp. > > > > A negative of adding so many

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules

2013-12-24 Thread Ding Tianhong
于 2013/12/24 22:22, Joe Perches 写道: > On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 19:27 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned >> and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp. > > A negative of adding so many different drivers in a single > patch is that you miss sending patc

Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules

2013-12-24 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 19:27 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned > and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp. A negative of adding so many different drivers in a single patch is that you miss sending patches to the named maintainers. Most of these b

[E1000-devel] RSS Configuration in ixgbe (Queue limit?)

2013-12-24 Thread Scott Silverman
In attempting to troubleshoot the issue with ring buffer drops I wrote about in another thread, I've noticed some behavior in ixgbe that does not match documentation. Configuring RSS (with RSS=#,#) to a value between 1-16 works as expected. Setting no value (or setting 0, default) configures as ma

[E1000-devel] [PATCH v2 01/20] net: slight optimization of addr compare for some modules

2013-12-24 Thread Ding Tianhong
Use possibly more efficient ether_addr_equal_unaligned and ether_addr_equal to instead of memcmp. Cc: "David S. Miller" Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong --- drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c