[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121114092530.GA22323@tugrik.mns.mnsspb.ru>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:25:30 +0400
From: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@....spb.ru>
To: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc: Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
Hayes Wang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] r8169: jumbo fixes caused jumbo regressions!
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35:12PM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@....spb.ru> :
> [...]
> > My test is to stream raw video from 8 PAL cameras to net - 4 for 720x576@25 and
> > 4 for 360x288@25 which for YUYV format occupies ~ 860 Mbps of bandwidth. The
> > program to transmit/receive video is here: http://repo.or.cz/w/rawv.git
>
> $ git clone http://repo.or.cz/w/rawv.git
> Cloning into 'rawv'...
> fatal: http://repo.or.cz/w/rawv.git/info/refs not valid: is this a git repository?
That's a gitweb view. The actual git repo is here:
git://repo.or.cz/rawv.git
sorry for confusion.
( if you'll want to test with vivi on a slow system, you'll need my
patches, currently staging in media-tree patchwork, or available here:
git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/kirr.git vivi-speedup-and-fps.over-net-next )
> [...]
> > (by the way, on atom system, without tx csum offload, half of cpu time
> > is spent only to calculate checksums...)
>
> :o(
yes, that large. In top, my workload is
%sy %id %si
default driver load ~25 ~45 ~27
(ethtool -k shows
tx-checksumming: off)
after ~8 ~81 ~11
`ethtool -K eth0 tx on`
that's why the issue is important.
> > Now I wonder, where that 6K limit came from and why they say it is now
> > not possible to use jumbos together with tx csum offload ?
>
> Here is an excerpt from a mail where Hayes explained the rules of
> engagement back in may 2011 (John Lumby and Chris Friesen were Cced then):
Can't find that mail in gmane netdev archive and on google, to restore
full context. Was that in private?
> ! The Max tx sizes for 8168 series are as following:
> !
> ! 8168B is 4K bytes.
> ! 8168C and 8168CP are 6K bytes.
> ! 8168D and later are 9K bytes.
> !
> ! Note that these sizes all include head size. That is, the mtu must less than
> ! these values.
> ! You have to enable Jumbo frame feature when the tx size is large, otherwise the
> ! packet would not be sent. Because the hw doesn't provide the threshold, the
> ! checking for MTU > 1500 is just for convenience for sw.
This part is clear.
> ! The TSO couldn't work with some feature which need to disable hw checksum, such
> ! as Jumbo frame. The hw checksum have to be disabled in certain situations, so
> ! the TSO feature should be checked in these situations, too.
I don't enable TSO nor I need it. The text indirectly says that hw
checksum should be disabled when jumbo frames are used.
~~~~
Hayes, Realtek linux nic maintainers,
could you please confirm that for all 8168C and 8168CP jumbo_max is
6K and that when jumbos are used, tx checksumming should be off?
If so, how come my two chips work stable with ~7K jumbos and tx checksum
offload on (tested this night again for ~16 hours without any problem).
thanks beforehand.
> > Is my testing enough to justify raising the limits and allowing tx offload ?
>
> I don't oppose knobs to go off-limits but I'll need some rather good reason
> before changing the manufacturer's suggested defaults.
Thanks. Let's see what Realtek people say.
Kirill
--
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