netdev - Re: RX packet loss on i.MX6Q running 4.2-rc7

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:49:20 +0200
From:	Jon Nettleton <jon.nettleton@...il.com>
To:	Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@...escale.com>,
	Nimrod Andy <B38611@...escale.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@...ndarydevices.com>,
	Frank Li <Frank.Li@...escale.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Duan Andy <fugang.duan@...escale.com>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Lothar Waßmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: RX packet loss on i.MX6Q running 4.2-rc7

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Clemens Gruber
<clemens.gruber@...ruber.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am experiencing massive RX packet loss on my i.MX6Q (Chip rev 1.3) on Linux
> 4.2-rc7 with a Marvell 88E1510 Gigabit Ethernet PHY connected over RGMII.
> I noticed it when doing an UDP benchmark with iperf3. When sending UDP packets
> from a Debian PC to the i.MX6 with a rate of 100 Mbit/s, 99% of the packets are
> lost. With a rate of 10 Mbit/s, we are still losing 93% of all packets. TCP RX
> does suffer from packet loss too, but still achieves about 211 Mbit/s.
> TX is not affected.
>
> Steps to reproduce:
> On the i.MX6: iperf3 -s
> On a desktop PC:  iperf3 -b 10M -u -c MX6IP
>
> The iperf3 results:
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter    Lost/Total
> [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  11.8 MBytes  9.90 Mbits/sec  0.687 ms  1397/1497 (93%)
>
> During the 10 Mbit UDP test, the IEEE_rx_macerr counter increased to 5371.
> ifconfig eth0 shows:
>  RX packets:9216 errors:5248 dropped:170 overruns:5248 frame:5248
>  TX packets:83 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>  collisions:0
>
> Here are the TCP results with iperf3 -c MX6IP:
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
> [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   252 MBytes   211 Mbits/sec  4343             sender
> [  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   251 MBytes   211 Mbits/sec                  receiver
>
> During the TCP test, IEEE_rx_macerr increased to 4059.
> ifconfig eth0 shows:
> RX packets:186368 errors:4206 dropped:50 overruns:4206 frame:4206
> TX packets:41861 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0
>
> Freescale errata entry ERR004512 did mention a RX FIFO overrun. Is this related?
>
> Forcing pause frames via ethtool -A eth0 rx on tx on, does not improve it:
> Same amount of UDP packet loss with reduced TCP throughput of 190 Mbit/s.
> IEEE_rx_macerr increased up to 5232 during UDP 10Mbit and up to 4270 for TCP.
>
> I am already using the MX6QDL_PAD_GPIO_6__ENET_IRQ workaround, which solved the
> ping latency issues from ERR006687 but not the packet loss problem.
>
> I read through the mailing list archives and found a discussion between Russell
> King, Marek Vasut, Eric Nelson, Fugang Duan and others about a similar problem.
> I therefore added you and contributors to fec_main.c to the CC.
>
> One suggestion I found, was adding udelay(210); to fec_enet_rx():
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/22/88
> But this also did not reduce the packet loss. (I added it to the fec_enet_rx
> function just before return pkt_received; but I still got 93% packet loss)
>
> Does anyone have the equipment/setup to trace an i.MX6Q during UDP RX traffic
> from iperf3 to find the root cause of this packet loss problem?
>
> What else could we do to fix this?
>

This is a bug in iperf3's UDP tests.  Do the same test with iperf2 and
you will see expected performance.  I believe there is a bug open in
github about it.

-Jon
--
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