[nfe] DHCP failure on 8-stable

Thu Apr 12 10:25:13 UTC 2012

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 04:02:46AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 01:29:55PM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:36:12PM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 09:51:19AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:37:15AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:45:30AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:36:36PM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> YongHyeon PYUN <pyunyh at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 03:50:02AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 04/02/2012 03:52 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:40:44AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 03/30/2012 19:38, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:01:52AM -0400, enoch wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Recently it became extremely difficult to pass the DHCP discovery step
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> on boot. Now I am using the buggy [nve] instead.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Can anyone help?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Did you set synchronous_dhclient option in rc.conf? 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes: ifconfig_nfe0="SYNCDHCP"
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess [nfe] is undergoing gradual devel changes of some sort as before
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it had some chance of reporting "empty headers" on initial ifconfig and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> refusing to work. Sorry, I should have reported when encountering the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> first problems rather than solve by reboot.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Would you show me the output of both dmesg(nfe(4) and its PHY only)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and 'sysctl dev.nfe.0.stats'?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It would be also helpful to know whether nfe(4) still sees
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > incoming traffic.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Does assigning static IP work?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Static IP direct communication attempt from this desktop to another
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> laptop through a crossover cable fails as follows. Thanks.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>         options=82008<VLAN_MTU,WOL_MAGIC,LINKSTATE>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>         ether 00:1f:bc:00:19:dc
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>         inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>         media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <full-duplex,flowcontrol,master,rxpause,txpause>)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>         status: active
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: link state changed to UP
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: <NVIDIA nForce 430 MCP13 Networking Adapter> port 0xf200-0xf207
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> mem 0xefffb000-0xefffbfff irq 21 at device 20.0 on pci0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> miibus1: <MII bus> on nfe0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems you've omitted PHY driver here. What PHY driver was
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > attached to nfe(4)?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> miibus1: <MII bus> on nfe0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> rgephy1: <RTL8169S/8110S/8211B media interface> PHY 1 on miibus1
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: Ethernet address: 00:1f:bc:00:19:dc
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: [FILTER]
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: link state changed to UP
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0: discard frame w/o leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.frame_errors: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.extra_bytes: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.late_cols: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.runts: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.jumbos: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.fifo_overuns: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.crc_errors: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.fae: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.len_errors: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.unicast: 56
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.multicast: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.rx.broadcast: 280
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.octets: 7517
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.zero_rexmits: 51
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.one_rexmits: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.multi_rexmits: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.late_cols: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.fifo_underuns: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.carrier_losts: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.excess_deferrals: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> dev.nfe.0.stats.tx.retry_errors: 0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Thanks. Would you show me the output of "pciconf -lcbv"?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> nfe0 at pci0:0:20:0:       class=0x068000 card=0x10003842 chip=0x026910de rev=0xa3 hdr=0x00
> >> >> >> >> >> >>     vendor     = 'NVIDIA Corporation'
> >> >> >> >> >> >>     device     = 'MCP51 Network Bus Enumerator'
> >> >> >> >> >> >>     class      = bridge
> >> >> >> >> >> >>     bar   [10] = type Memory, range 32, base 0xefffb000, size 4096, enabled
> >> >> >> >> >> >>     bar   [14] = type I/O Port, range 32, base 0xf200, size  8, enabled
> >> >> >> >> >> >>     cap 01[44] = powerspec 2  supports D0 D1 D2 D3  current D0
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Interestingly, now that nfe0 is using a static IP it sometimes boots
> >> >> >> >> >> >> up properly. Are you interested in its good working?
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes I am. Would you try attached patch and let me know whether the
> >> >> >> >> >> > patch makes any difference on your box?
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry to report: The patch was applied (to 8-stable latest code) but out
> >> >> >> >> >> of 3 boots only one succeeded. Same stream of "nfe0: discard frame w/o
> >> >> >> >> >> leading ethernet header (len 0 pkt len 0)" messages.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Ok, back out previous patch and try attached one.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> With these two patch files applied to the 8-stable code, buildkernel
> >> >> >> >> fails as follows.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c: In function 'nfe_attach':
> >> >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c:629: error: 'struct mii_softc' has no member named 'mii_mpd_oui'
> >> >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c:629: error: 'struct mii_softc' has no member named 'mii_mpd_oui'
> >> >> >> >> /usr/src/sys/modules/nfe/../../dev/nfe/if_nfe.c:630: error: 'struct mii_softc' has no member named 'mii_mpd_model'
> >> >> >> >> *** Error code 1
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Oops, sorry I forgot that this part of change was not merged to
> >> >> >> > stable/8.  I've attached a minimal patch which would be cleanly
> >> >> >> > applied to stable/8.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Wasn't the attached diff3 already included in diff2? Seems to me the
> >> >> >> wrong file was attached this time.  Please advise.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff2 is subset of diff3 but it can be merged to stable/8 and
> >> >> > stable/7. Probably diff2 may have better chance to fully
> >> >> > reinitialize PHY but let's see whether diff3 also makes difference
> >> >> > on your box.
> >> >> > So back out any changes and apply diff3.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm sorry, this if_nfereg.h patch is not enough. Boot failure frequency
> >> >> is just the same. I guess I should consider migrating to 9-stable. The
> >> >> problem with 9-stable is that most of the time it does not build :-(
> >> >> 
> >> >> Thanks for your efforts. Enoch.
> >> >
> >> > Here is updated patch for stable/8. Let me know whether it makes
> >> > any difference.
> >> 
> >> Sorry, the diff4 patch compiled but made no difference (using static
> >> IP). On first boot the "w/o leading ethernet header" problem showed
> >> up. Can you generate diagnostic messages that I can collect for you from
> >> dmesg or messages?
> >> 
> >
> > Due to lack of documentation, I also don't know which registers
> > should I poke at this moment. This reminds me old experimental
> > patch which tried to address reset/DMA issues.
> > Would you try that? Note, I don't have access to nfe(4) so
> > the patch was not tested at all.
> > You can find the patch at the following URL.
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/nfe.reset.diff
> 
> I will try it in the next few days. 

Ok, thanks.

> I saw that you are contributing to the [re] driver as well. This PCI
> card <RealTek 8169/8169S/8169SB(L)/8110S/8110SB(L) Gigabit Ethernet>
> that I plugged (to replace [nfe]) in 8-stable is losing its Ethernet
> connection to the router every few hours. Recovery is only possible
> through a reboot. What info do you suggest to collect before opening a
> new thread. Thanks.
> 

It's the same as nfe(4). Include both dmesg output(re(4), rgephy(4)
only) and any messages printed by re(4). If you know how to trigger
the issue, share that information too.