Re: CURRENT: net/igb broken

From: O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:40:00 +0100
Am Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:08:39 +0000
Eric Joyner <erj_at_freebsd.org> schrieb:

> Does your i210 now work with the reverted version of igb? I didn't get a
> chance to follow up on this earlier.
> 
> Also, can you give us the device ID for the device? There are a couple
> versions of the i210 hardware.
> 
> - Eric

Not yet, since the box is in the lab and I have access to it earliest on Monday - but of
course, I will provide the informations as soon I have access.

oh

> 
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:23 PM O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:52:57 -0700
> > Sean Bruno <sbruno_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> >  
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/02/15 00:47, O. Hartmann wrote:  
> > > > On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:39:11 +0000 Eric Joyner <ricera10_at_gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >> Oliver,
> > > >>
> > > >> did you try Sean's suggestion?
> > > >>
> > > >> - Eric
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:10 PM Sean Bruno <sbruno_at_freebsd.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 09/21/15 23:23, O. Hartmann wrote:  
> > > >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:13:18 +0000 Eric Joyner
> > > >>>>> <ricera10_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>  
> > > >>>>>> If you do a diff between r288057 and r287761, there are
> > > >>>>>> no differences between the sys/dev/e1000, sys/modules/em,
> > > >>>>>> and sys/modules/igb directories. Are you sure r287761
> > > >>>>>> actually works?  
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm quite sure r287761 works (and r287762 doesn't), double
> > > >>>>> checked this this morning again. I also checked r288093 and
> > > >>>>> it is still not working.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The ensure that I'm not the culprit and stupid here:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I use a NanoBSD environment and the only thing that gets
> > > >>>>> exchanged, is the underlying OS/OS revision. The
> > > >>>>> configuration always stays the same. The base system for
> > > >>>>> all of my tests is built from a clean source - (deleted
> > > >>>>> obj/ dir, clean, fresh build into obj/ for every test I
> > > >>>>> ran).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I realised a funny thing. Playing around with
> > > >>>>> enabling/disabling TSO (I have been told that could be the
> > > >>>>> culprit in an earlier Email from this list) with the
> > > >>>>> commend sequence:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ifconfig igb1 down ifconfig igb1 -tso ifconfig igb1 up
> > > >>>>> ifconfig igb1 down ifconfig igb1 tso ifconfig igb1 up . .
> > > >>>>> .
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> while a ping is pinging in the background a remote host
> > > >>>>> connected to that specific interface, the ping does work
> > > >>>>> for a while and dies then after a round trip of roughly 10
> > > >>>>> - 20. I can reproduce this.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> is that observation of any help?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> oh
> > > >>>>>  
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:58 AM O. Hartmann
> > > >>>>>> <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>  
> > > >>>>>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:23:44 -0700 Sean Bruno
> > > >>>>>>> <sbruno_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>  
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 09/18/15 10:20, Eric Joyner wrote:  
> > > >>>>>>>>>> He has an i210 -- he would want to revert
> > > >>>>>>>>>> e1000_i210.[ch], too.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the thrash Sean -- it sounds like it
> > > >>>>>>>>>> would be a good idea for you should revert this
> > > >>>>>>>>>> patch, and Jeff and I can go look at trying these
> > > >>>>>>>>>> shared code updates and igb changes internally
> > > >>>>>>>>>> again. We at Intel really could've done a better
> > > >>>>>>>>>> job of making sure these changes worked across a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wider variety of devices.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> - Eric  
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I've reverted the changes to head.  I'll reopen the reviews
> > > >>>>> and we can proceed from there.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> sean
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>  
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:50 AM Sean Bruno
> > > >>>>>>>>>> <sbruno_at_freebsd.org <mailto:sbruno_at_freebsd.org>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>  
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> r287762 broke the system  
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Before I revert this changeset *again* can you
> > > >>>>>>>>>> test revert r287762 from if_igb.c, e1000_82575.c
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and e1000_82575.h *only*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> That narrows down the change quite a bit.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> sean  
> >
> > [...]
> >  
> > > >>>>>>>  
> > > >>>>>>>>>>  
> > > I'm now on r288057 on that specific machine, supposedly  
> > > >>>>>>> reverted changes that seemingly has been identified as
> > > >>>>>>> the culprit. Still NO change in behaviour!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> r287761 works with the same configuration on igb
> > > >>>>>>> (i210), any further does not. Not ping/connect from the
> > > >>>>>>> outside, no ping/connect from the inside. Tried
> > > >>>>>>> different protocols (SAMBA, ssh, LDAP, DNS). Affected
> > > >>>>>>> is/are only boxes with the igb driver and i210 chipset
> > > >>>>>>> (we do not have other chips covered by igb).
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Regards, Oliver  
> >
> > [...]
> >  
> > > >
> > > > For my entertainment (and HPS's), can you run HEAD and revert
> > > > r287775?
> > > >
> > > > sean  
> >
> > [...]
> >  
> > > > I did as suggested:
> > > >
> > > > checking out the most recent HEAD of CURRENT this morning, which
> > > > is/was for me r288474. I applied then "svn merge -c -287775 .",
> > > > which reverted(?) only r287775, which is something with
> > > > tcp_output.c or so. I did not remember.
> > > >  
> > >
> > > Thanks.  This is what I intended.
> > >
> > >  
> > > > I recompiled a fresh world (cleaning up /usr/obj completely by
> > > > deleting the folder) and try running the target system with the
> > > > created image.
> > > >
> > > > Result: the same as >r287761, it doesn't work. I reverted back to
> > > > r287761, which works for me on the specific target hardware
> > > > (Fujitsu Primergy RX 1330 M1).
> > > >  
> > >
> > > What's really confusing me is that I've reverted r287762 and you are
> > > still having problems.  
> >
> > It is confusing me also. I'm about to walk through the commits to check
> > whether
> > there is another possibility of influence - say: changes in the way things
> > work
> > due to configuration et cetera. Due to the fact I use a NanoBSD image on
> > that
> > very specific system, the configuration always is the very same but the
> > underlying OS changes with the revision.
> >
> > An observation I made is also very strange: on most recent CURRENT
> > flapping the
> > state of the igb network interface by bringing it up and down repeatedly,
> > I get
> > sometimes, not always and reproducable, a connection - pings go through
> > for a
> > couple of pakets, but not more than 10 in the tests I ran so far.
> >  
> > >
> > > Can you set bootverbose (boot_verbose="YES" in loader.conf) with the
> > > current version of -CURRENT and post the dmesg somewhere for me to
> > > look at?  
> >
> > Yes, of course, but in worst case I can do this not before Wednesday since
> > we
> > have to perform some tests on that specific system today and Tuesday and
> > I'm
> > now with the working revision r287761. It's a bit complicated, die to the
> > fact
> > the system is isolated from the internet so far and I have to pull the
> > dmesg
> > and save it to a flash drive and this I have to do on-site, and I'm not
> > on-site
> > at the moment.
> >  
> > >
> > > sean  
> >
> > Oliver
> >  


Received on Sat Jan 09 2016 - 07:40:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:02 UTC