[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3878056.TXPIU5uV5l@rocinante.m.i2n>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 17:42:37 +0200
From: Juliana Rodrigueiro <juliana.rodrigueiro@...ra2net.com>
To: "Neftin, Sasha" <sasha.neftin@...el.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, thomas.jarosch@...ra2net.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Work around hardware unit hang by disabling TSO
Hello Sasha,
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019 07:39:46 CEST Neftin, Sasha wrote:
> You are right, in some particular configurations e1000e devices stuck at
> Tx hang while TCP segmentation offload is on. But for all other users we
> should keep the TCP segmentation option is enabled as default. I suggest
> to use 'ethtool' command: ethtool -K <adapter> tso on/off to workaround
> Tx hang in your situation.
> Thanks,
> Sasha
thank you for your reply.
I did consider using "ethtool" to disable TSO for my use cases. However, I
have no guarantees that a machine with the PCH2 device will not hang and
render my system inaccessible before anything in userspace runs. No amount of
connection outage is acceptable.
The problem escalates when we take into consideration that the exact
circumstances that bring the device into an unrecoverable state don't seem to
be known even by the Intel developers themselves.
This patch keeps the problematic device stable for all configurations.
So I ask myself, how actually feasible is it to gamble the usage of "ethtool"
to turn on or off TSO every time the network configuration changes?
Why should we let the users run into an open knife instead of preemptively fix
a known hardware bug via the kernel? Otherwise all Linux distributions would
need to apply the magic ethtool fix for this specific PCI id.
Best regards,
Juliana
Powered by blists - more mailing lists