nve related LOR triggered by lots of small packets,
and a hard hang
Pyun YongHyeon
pyunyh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 13 00:39:34 UTC 2007
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:47:04AM -0800, Mark Atkinson wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:23:41AM -0800, Mark Atkinson wrote:
> > > Mark Atkinson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:53:31PM +0300, Sergey Zaharchenko wrote:
> > > >> > Hello John!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:10:12AM -0500 you wrote:
> > > >> > [snip]
> > > >> > > Have you tried using nfe(4)? :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Now I have, and it works just fine, thanks (I somehow thought nfe
> > > >> > was specific to some platform). Why isn't it the default? Smaller
> > > >> > range of hardware supported?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> AFAIK, nfe(4) supports more hardwares than that of nve(4).
> > > >> Try overhauled nfe(4) in the following URL.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfe.c
> > > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfereg.h
> > > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfevar.h
> > > >>
> > > >> The patch fixed serveral bugs in nfe(4) and it should perform better
> > > >> than nve(4). The following hardware features are supported.
> > > >> o TSO
> > > >> o Tx/Rx IP/TCP/UDP checksum offload
> > > >> o VLAN hardware tag insertion/stripping
> > > >> o Jumbo frame(up to 9100 bytes)
> > > >>
> > > >> It seems that the hardware supports MSI/MSI-X too but I don't have
> > > >> nForce hardwares that supports MSI/MSI-X so it's hard to implement/
> > > >> experiment it. Accoring to the Shigeaki Tagashira, the author of
> > > >> FreeBSD nfe(4), his hardware claims to support 8 messages. I've
> > > >> checked Linux forcedeth driver to get hardware information for
> > > >> MSI/MSI-X but it I cound't understand the details. :-(
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I've been running into this hardlock LOR a lot recently on a TYAN
> > > > 2895
> > > > (K8WE) based box. So I tried your patch to nfe on today's -current.
> > > > I tried a couple of small packet ping floods to a lan neighbor
> > > > under nfe and
> > > > it survived. Did fine with some large NFS over TCP transfers as
> > > > well. However, I'll leave it up and running to see if it keels over
> > > > in the future.
> > > >
> > > > pci128: <ACPI PCI bus> on pcib6
> > > > pci128: physical bus=128
> > > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x005e, revid=0xa3
> > > > bus=128, slot=0, func=0
> > > > class=05-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0
> > > > cmdreg=0x0006, statreg=0x00b0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords)
> > > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x00 (0 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns)
> > > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x00d3, revid=0xa3
> > > > bus=128, slot=1, func=0
> > > > class=05-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=1
> > > > cmdreg=0x000f, statreg=0x00a0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords)
> > > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x00 (0 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0 ns)
> > > > map[14]: type 1, range 32, base 0xd8400000, size 12, enabled
> > > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x0057, revid=0xa3
> > > > bus=128, slot=10, func=0
> > > > class=06-80-00, hdrtype=0x00, mfdev=0
> > > > cmdreg=0x0007, statreg=0x00b0, cachelnsz=0 (dwords)
> > > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x01 (250 ns), maxlat=0x14 (5000
> > > > ns) intpin=a, irq=5
> > > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D1 D2 D3 current D0
> > > > map[10]: type 1, range 32, base 0xd8401000, size 12, enabled
> > > > map[14]: type 4, range 32, base 0x3000, size 3, enabled
> > > > pcib6: matched entry for 128.10.INTA (src \\_SB_.PCI1.LMAC:0)
> > > > pci_link22: Picked IRQ 52 with weight 0
> > > > ioapic3: Changing polarity for pin 20 to high
> > > > pcib6: slot 10 INTA routed to irq 52 via \\_SB_.PCI1.LMAC
> > > > found-> vendor=0x10de, dev=0x005d, revid=0xa3
> > > > bus=128, slot=14, func=0
> > > > class=06-04-00, hdrtype=0x01, mfdev=0
> > > > cmdreg=0x0107, statreg=0x0010, cachelnsz=16 (dwords)
> > > > lattimer=0x00 (0 ns), mingnt=0x04 (1000 ns), maxlat=0x00 (0
> > > > ns)
> > > > powerspec 2 supports D0 D3 current D0
> > > > MSI supports 2 messages, 64 bit
> > > > pci128: <memory> at device 0.0 (no driver attached)
> > > > pci128: <memory> at device 1.0 (no driver attached)
> > > > nfe1: <NVIDIA nForce4 CK804 MCP9 Networking Adapter> port
> > > > 0x3000-0x3007 mem 0xd8
> > > > 401000-0xd8401fff irq 52 at device 10.0 on pci128
> > > > nfe1: Reserved 0x1000 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at 0xd8401000
> > > > nfe1: bpf attached
> > > > e1: Ethernet address: 00:e0:81:57:d9:af
> > > > miibus1: <MII bus> on nfe1
> > > > e1000phy1: <Marvell 88E1111 Gigabit PHY> PHY 1 on miibus1
> > > > e1000phy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX,
> > > > 1000baseTX-FDX, auto
> > > > ioapic3: routing intpin 20 (PCI IRQ 52) to vector 57
> > > > nfe1: [MPSAFE]
> > > > nfe1: [FAST]
> > >
> > > After a day of running this, it became obvious the nfe driver patch has
> > > some
> > > sort of issue, at least with -current and this board. Although NFS
> > > speeds seemed reasonable, transfers over TCP from a webserver suffered
> > > some sort
> > > of very noticeable pause/send/pause/send... type problem that reduced
> > > transfers to about 6Kbyte/s. This problem went away when putting nve
> > > back into the kernel and retrying the same scenerio.
> > >
> >
> > Would you explain the scenario to reproduce it on my box?
> > How about disabling checksum offload?
>
> After a few tests, it's all related to TSO ( segmentation offloading )
>
> Turning that off, but leaving rxcsum and txcsum enabled works and performs
> speedily. Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> Note that, for some reason NFS over tcp speeds didn't seem affected that
> much only userland TCP seemed to be negatively affected.
>
Thanks for the report! I'll look into the TSO related part and
let you know if I have some patches.
> --
> Mark Atkinson
> atkin901 at yahoo.com
> (!wired)?(coffee++):(wired);
>
--
Regards,
Pyun YongHyeon
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list