At 02:20 PM 11/10/2009, Jack Vogel wrote: >This is a fix for this problem, please apply and test this. Hi, Thanks! Yes, I am able to use both ports of the NIC now and no panics yet. Prior to this patch, bringing up both ports resulted in a non functioning NIC and panic! Generating some UDP and tcp traffic through the box, all seems to be OK on first blush. I will try some more extensive tests over the next little while. igb0: Excessive collisions = 0 igb0: Sequence errors = 0 igb0: Defer count = 0 igb0: Missed Packets = 0 igb0: Receive No Buffers = 40 igb0: Receive Length Errors = 0 igb0: Receive errors = 2 igb0: Crc errors = 4 igb0: Alignment errors = 0 igb0: Collision/Carrier extension errors = 0 igb0: RX overruns = 0 igb0: watchdog timeouts = 0 igb0: XON Rcvd = 0 igb0: XON Xmtd = 0 igb0: XOFF Rcvd = 0 igb0: XOFF Xmtd = 0 igb0: Good Packets Rcvd = 103212774 igb0: Good Packets Xmtd = 9347339 igb0: TSO Contexts Xmtd = 0 igb0: TSO Contexts Failed = 0 igb1: Excessive collisions = 0 igb1: Sequence errors = 0 igb1: Defer count = 0 igb1: Missed Packets = 0 igb1: Receive No Buffers = 0 igb1: Receive Length Errors = 0 igb1: Receive errors = 0 igb1: Crc errors = 0 igb1: Alignment errors = 0 igb1: Collision/Carrier extension errors = 0 igb1: RX overruns = 0 igb1: watchdog timeouts = 0 igb1: XON Rcvd = 0 igb1: XON Xmtd = 0 igb1: XOFF Rcvd = 0 igb1: XOFF Xmtd = 0 igb1: Good Packets Rcvd = 9365642 igb1: Good Packets Xmtd = 17781877 igb1: TSO Contexts Xmtd = 988 igb1: TSO Contexts Failed = 0 # ./netsend 10.255.255.3 600 300 280000 10 Sending packet of payload size 300 every 0.000003571s for 10 seconds start: 1257884127.000000000 finish: 1257884137.000003339 send calls: 2800336 send errors: 1970 approx send rate: 279836 approx error rate: 0 waited: 1259257 approx waits/sec: 125925 approx wait rate: 0 # traceroute 10.255.255.3 traceroute to 10.255.255.3 (10.255.255.3), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 0.096 ms 0.073 ms 0.115 ms 2 10.255.255.3 (10.255.255.3) 67.953 ms 0.297 ms 0.241 ms The box with the igb nics has the interfaces 1.1.1.1 and 10.255.255.1 ---Mike >Jack > >------- if_igb.c (revision 197079) >+++ if_igb.c (working copy) >_at__at_ -2654,7 +2654,7 _at__at_ > int error; > > error = bus_dma_tag_create(bus_get_dma_tag(adapter->dev), /* parent */ >- IGB_DBA_ALIGN, 0, /* alignment, bounds */ >+ 1, 0, /* alignment, bounds */ > BUS_SPACE_MAXADDR, /* lowaddr */ > BUS_SPACE_MAXADDR, /* highaddr */ > NULL, NULL, /* filter, filterarg */ >_at__at_ -2867,7 +2867,7 _at__at_ > * Setup DMA descriptor areas. > */ > if ((error = bus_dma_tag_create(NULL, /* parent */ >- PAGE_SIZE, 0, /* alignment, bounds */ >+ 1, 0, /* alignment, bounds */ > BUS_SPACE_MAXADDR, /* lowaddr */ > BUS_SPACE_MAXADDR, /* highaddr */ > NULL, NULL, /* filter, filterarg */ >_at__at_ -3554,7 +3554,7 _at__at_ > ** it may not always use this. > */ > if ((error = bus_dma_tag_create(NULL, /* parent */ >- PAGE_SIZE, 0, /* alignment, bounds */ >+ 1, 0, /* alignment, bounds */ > BUS_SPACE_MAXADDR, /* lowaddr */ > BUS_SPACE_MAXADDR, /* highaddr */ > NULL, NULL, /* filter, filterarg */ > > > >On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jack Vogel ><<mailto:jfvogel_at_gmail.com>jfvogel_at_gmail.com> wrote: >I have repro'd this failure this morning and think I have a fix for >it, I am testing that soon. > >Stay tuned, > >Jack > > > >On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Mike Tancsa ><<mailto:mike_at_sentex.net>mike_at_sentex.net> wrote: >At 07:33 PM 11/9/2009, Jack Vogel wrote: >Some reason you aren't using amd64? I will have a system installed that way >and see if I can repro it then, thanks. > > > >I had found in the past i386 was faster for firewall and routing >applications. Perhaps thats different now, I will give it a try >again to see if there is any difference. > >pciconf and dmesg attached. > > ---Mike > > > >Jack > > > >On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Mike Tancsa ><<mailto:mike_at_sentex.net>mike_at_sentex.net> wrote: >At 05:59 PM 11/9/2009, Jack Vogel wrote: >Are you using standard MTU or jumbo? That get_buf error is ENOMEM, looks like >that happens when in the bus_dma stuff reserve_bounce_pages() fails. > >Are you maybe using a 32 bit kernel? I have not seen this failure here. > > >Hi Jack, > Standard MTU and i386 > > ---Mike > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 >Sentex Communications, <mailto:mike_at_sentex.net>mike_at_sentex.net >Providing Internet since >1994 ><<http://www.sentex.net>http://www.sentex.net>www.sentex.net >Cambridge, Ontario >Canada ><<http://www.sentex.net/mike>http://www.sentex.net/mike>www.sentex.net/mike > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 >Sentex >Communications, ><mailto:mike_at_sentex.net>mike_at_sentex.net >Providing Internet since >1994 <http://www.sentex.net>www.sentex.net >Cambridge, Ontario >Canada <http://www.sentex.net/mike>www.sentex.net/mike > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike_at_sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mikeReceived on Tue Nov 10 2009 - 19:18:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:57 UTC