Message-ID: <055d30730914c5695e51aee2cf6399f5@visp.net.lb>
Date:	Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:23:54 +0200
From:	denys@...p.net.lb
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	John Bermudez <jbermudez@...cservice.com>,
	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: e1000 - rx misses

 On my experience such things happen because of too long iptables chains 
 or many "linear" u32 iproute2 filters (also long chains).
 Sometimes also machines with non-tsc timesource + promisc mode enabled 
 or ping running.

 On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:01:49 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Brandeburg, 
 Jesse wrote:
> <removed non-relevant users>
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, John Bermudez wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your time
>> Can you tell me the command to lengthen the input fifo rx queue?
>> is this possible
>
> You can try increasing the number of rx buffers via the command
> # ethtool -G ethX rx 4096
>
> and if you were really gung ho, you could increase the amount of fifo
> allocated to the rx side of the fifo by modifying the source.  That 
> said,
> I don't think that will buy you anything because it seems from the 
> small
> amount of data provided that you are having exceptionally long 
> periods of
> time where the data is coming faster than your machine can process 
> (for
> whatever reason) and increasing the fifo only will give you a 
> marginal
> (4kB or so) increasing in buffering.
>
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brandeburg, Jesse [mailto:jesse.brandeburg@...el.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:05 AM
>> To: John Bermudez
>> Cc: cramerj; Ronciak, John; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Kok, Auke-jan H; 
>> netdev@...r.kernel.org; e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: e1000 - rx misses
>>
>> added e1000-devel, responses inline...
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, John Bermudez wrote:
>>
>> > Hello All,
>> > I got your contact info in a forum.
>> > maybe you could give me a quick pointer.
>> >
>> > I have a device that is experiencing RX misses. I tried 1000/full 
>> and 100/full
>> > it occurs at both speeds. I seem to get a burst of loss so I am 
>> assuming I am overrunning the FIFO RX queue.
>>
>> overrunning at 100Mb/s seems pretty unlikely to be our hardware's 
>> fault,
>> as your buffer (in time) is increasing by 10x.
>>
>> >
>> > Any known workarounds?
>> > Configuration modifications?
>> >
>> > your time is much appreciated
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > /lib/modules/2.4.31-uc0/kernel/drivers/net/e1000
>> > # ls
>> > e1000.o
>>
>> ow, 2.4.31 kernel is pretty much so old as to not be supportable.
>>
>> > # ethtool -S eth1
>> > NIC statistics:
>> >      rx_packets: 217454512
>> >      tx_packets: 266698397
>> >      rx_bytes: 172995819593
>> >      tx_bytes: 246744709750
>> >      rx_broadcast: 0
>> >      tx_broadcast: 528
>> <snip>
>> >      rx_no_buffer_count: 925
>>
>> This count above indicates that your cpu is not returning buffers to
>> hardware fast enough.  Do you have NAPI enabled?
>>
>> >      rx_missed_errors: 48206
>>
>> This error means that for the length of time the fifo was buffering 
>> the
>> adapter was not able to get any data buffers from the OS, filled the 
>> FIFO
>> and had to drop this many packets.
>>
>> >      tx_aborted_errors: 0
>> >      tx_carrier_errors: 0
>> >      tx_fifo_errors: 0
>> >      tx_heartbeat_errors: 0
>> >      tx_window_errors: 0
>> >      tx_abort_late_coll: 0
>> >      tx_deferred_ok: 0
>> >      tx_single_coll_ok: 0
>> >      tx_multi_coll_ok: 0
>> >      tx_timeout_count: 0
>> >      tx_restart_queue: 0
>> >      rx_long_length_errors: 0
>> >      rx_short_length_errors: 0
>> >      rx_align_errors: 0
>> >      tx_tcp_seg_good: 0
>> >      tx_tcp_seg_failed: 0
>> >      rx_flow_control_xon: 0
>> >      rx_flow_control_xoff: 0
>> >      tx_flow_control_xon: 0
>> >      tx_flow_control_xoff: 0
>>
>> flow control is either not happenning or is disabled, if it is 
>> disabled
>> you could try enabling it on both ends to get a little more 
>> buffering in
>> your switch.
>>
>> >      rx_long_byte_count: 172995819593
>> >      rx_csum_offload_good: 217406235
>> >      rx_csum_offload_errors: 17
>> >      rx_header_split: 0
>> >      alloc_rx_buff_failed: 0
>> >      tx_smbus: 0
>> >      rx_smbus: 5262
>>
>> hm, you have IPMI traffic, could these be related to your stalls?
>>
>> >      dropped_smbus: 0
>> > #
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you and have a nice day,
>> >
>> > Mr. John Bermudez
>> > NOC Level 3 Engineer
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You didn't include lots of data we need, like hardware type, 
>> adapter/chip,
>> ethtool -i output, cat /proc/interrupts, system info, .config, etc.
>>
>> I suggest that something is running either in interrupt context on 
>> your
>> system for a very long time (keeping us from running our interrupt
>> handler) or that your cpu is underpowered and unable to keep up with
>> whatever tasks it is running besides the network driver.
>>
>> If you wish to continue troubleshooting please file a bug at 
>> e1000.sf.net
>> and attach the requested info there.
>>
>> Jesse
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists