| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-id: <48595910.8000905@intel.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:50:56 -0700 From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, vgusev@...nvz.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl, mcmanus@...ksong.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, xemul@...nvz.org Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [TCP]: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT causes leak sockets Ingo Molnar wrote: > * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > >> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> >> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:27:06 +0200 >> >>> when i originally reported it i debugged it back to missing e1000 TX >>> completion IRQs. I tried various versions of the driver to figure >>> out whether new workarounds for e1000 cover it but it was fruitless. >>> There is a 1000 msec internal watchdog timer IRQ within e1000 that >>> gets things going if it's stuck. >> Then that explains your latency, the chip is getting stuck and TX >> interrupts stop, right. > > note that the 1000 msecs timer is AFAIK internal to the e1000 > _hardware_, not the driver itself. I.e. probably the firmware detects > and works around a hung transmitter. This is not detectable from the OS > (it's not an OS timer), but it can be observed by a lot of testing on a > totally quiescent system - which i did back then ;-) > > i also played a lot with the various knobs of the e1000, none of which > seemed to help. > > /me digs in archives > > i reported it to the e1000 folks in 2006: > > Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:24:00 +0100 > > against 2.6.19. The original report is below - with a trace and various > things i tried to debug this. > > i eventually got the suggestion from Auke to set RxIntDelay=8 which > seemed to work around the issue - but since i use a built-in driver i > dont have that setting here (RxIntDelay=8 is a module load parameter and > not exposed via Kconfig methods) and the e1000 driver does not seem to > have changed its default setting for RxIntDelay. > > 2.6.18-1.2849.fc6 was the last kernel that worked fine. > > Ingo > > --------------------> > Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:09:22 +0100 > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> > To: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> > Subject: Re: e1000: 2.6.19 & long packet latencies > Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, > "Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com> > > Jesse, et al., > > i'm having a weird packet processing latency problem with the e1000 > driver and recent kernels. > > The symptom is this: if i connect to a T60 laptop (which has an on-board > e1000) from the outside, i see large delays in network activity, and ssh > sessions are very sluggish. > > ping latencies show it best under a dynticks kernel (but vanilla 2.6.19 > is affected too): > > titan:~/linux/linux> ping e > PING europe (10.0.1.15) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.340 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=757 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1001 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1001 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.356 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=2127 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1002 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.320 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1002 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=2004 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1002 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.303 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1000 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=2010 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=1009 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.283 ms > > i have traced this and the 1000/2000 msecs values come from some sort of > e1000-internal 'heartbeat' interrupt. What seems to happen is that RX > packet processing is delayed indefinitely and the IRQ just does not > arrive. > > NOTE: the vanilla 2.6.19 kernel shows this too, but the ping delays are > 1/HZ. > > here's a (filtered) trace of such a delay. IRQ 0x219 is the e1000 > interrupt: > > <idle>-0 0D.h1 761236us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 761412us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 761416us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 761418us+: e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > <idle>-0 0D.h1 2760093us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 2760268us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 2760273us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 2760275us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > <idle>-0 0D.h1 3804499us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804674us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804679us+: e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804761us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804763us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804765us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > softirq--7 0.... 3804810us : net_rx_action (ksoftirqd) > softirq--5 0D.h. 3805425us : do_IRQ (c01598ac 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805499us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805504us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805506us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805547us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805549us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > softirq--6 0.... 3805641us : net_tx_action (ksoftirqd) > <idle>-0 0D.h1 4760910us : do_IRQ (c01451d4 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 4761347us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 4761352us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 4761353us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > <idle>-0 0D.h1 6761309us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 6761483us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 6761488us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 6761490us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > softirq--5 0D.h. 8760595us : do_IRQ (c0135dc4 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760676us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760681us+: e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760739us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760740us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760742us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > softirq--7 0.... 8760885us : net_rx_action (ksoftirqd) > softirq--7 0.... 8760914us+: icmp_rcv (ip_local_deliver) > softirq--7 0.... 8760923us+: icmp_reply (icmp_echo) > <idle>-0 0D.h1 8761661us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761833us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761838us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761840us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761875us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr) > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761876us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr) > softirq--6 0.... 8761921us : net_tx_action (ksoftirqd) > > note that timestamps 2760093us, 4760910us, 6761309us and 8760595us is > some sort of traffic-independent 'periodic' interrupt that e1000 > generates. That 'housekeeping' interrupt doesnt seem to be doing much. > The IRQ at 8760595us picks up an icmp packet and replies to it - but the > icmp packet in reality arrived somewhere between timestamps 6761309us > and 8760595us - but no IRQ was generated for it! > > Suspecting the interrupt-rate controlling bits of the e1000 hw i have > tried the following tunes too: > > -#define DEFAULT_RDTR 0 > +#define DEFAULT_RDTR 1 > > -#define DEFAULT_RADV 128 > +#define DEFAULT_RADV 1 > > -#define DEFAULT_TIDV 64 > +#define DEFAULT_TIDV 1 > > -#define DEFAULT_TADV 64 > +#define DEFAULT_TADV 1 > > -#define DEFAULT_ITR 8000 > +#define DEFAULT_ITR 100000 > > but they made no difference. > > a 2.6.18-ish kernel works fine (2.6.18-1.2849.fc6): > > titan:~/linux/linux> ping e > PING europe (10.0.1.15) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.695 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.184 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.159 ms > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.148 ms > > e1000: 0000:02:00.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 00:16:41:17:49:d2 > e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection > > the precise hardware version is: > > 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82573L Gigabit Ethernet Controller > Subsystem: Lenovo ThinkPad T60 > Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 90 > Memory at ee000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] > I/O ports at 2000 [size=32] > Capabilities: <access denied> > > this laptop has a CoreDuo so i have tried maxcpus=1 too, but it didnt > make any difference. > > Any ideas about what i should try next? > have you tried e1000e? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists