[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6da2e5a-eb85-d3cf-d4c3-ca9c0f0c04a4@molgen.mpg.de>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 07:11:25 +0200
From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Dylan Hung <dylan_hung@...eedtech.com>,
David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org, David Wilder <wilder@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: ftgmac100: Disable hardware checksum on
AST2600
Dear Joel,
Am 13.05.22 um 01:19 schrieb Joel Stanley:
> The AST2600 when using the i210 NIC over NC-SI has been observed to
> produce incorrect checksum results with specific MTU values. This was
> first observed when sending data across a long distance set of networks.
>
> On a local network, the following test was performed using a 1MB file of
> random data.
>
> On the receiver run this script:
>
> #!/bin/bash
> while [ 1 ]; do
> # Zero the stats
> nstat -r > /dev/null
> nc -l 9899 > test-file
> # Check for checksum errors
> TcpInCsumErrors=$(nstat | grep TcpInCsumErrors)
> if [ -z "$TcpInCsumErrors" ]; then
> echo No TcpInCsumErrors
> else
> echo TcpInCsumErrors = $TcpInCsumErrors
> fi
> done
>
> On an AST2600 system:
>
> # nc <IP of receiver host> 9899 < test-file
>
> The test was repeated with various MTU values:
>
> # ip link set mtu 1410 dev eth0
>
> The observed results:
>
> 1500 - good
> 1434 - bad
> 1400 - good
> 1410 - bad
> 1420 - good
Sort the values? As some MTUs are good, should a allow list for these
values be added?
> The test was repeated after disabling tx checksumming:
>
> # ethtool -K eth0 tx-checksumming off
>
> And all MTU values tested resulted in transfers without error.
>
> An issue with the driver cannot be ruled out, however there has been no
> bug discovered so far.
>
> David has done the work to take the original bug report of slow data
> transfer between long distance connections and triaged it down to this
> test case.
>
> The vendor suspects this this is a hardware issue when using NC-SI. The fixes line refers
> to the patch that introduced AST2600 support.
Please wrap the line after 75 characters.
Can the problem be reproduced with QEMU?
> Fixes: 39bfab8844a0 ("net: ftgmac100: Add support for DT phy-handle property")
> Reported-by: David Wilder <wilder@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Should the intel-wired-lan folks be put in Cc?
> ---
> v2 updates the commit message with confirmation form the vendor that
from
> this is a hardware issue, and clarifes why the commit used in the fixes
clarifies
> tag was chosen.
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/faraday/ftgmac100.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/faraday/ftgmac100.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/faraday/ftgmac100.c
> index caf48023f8ea..5231818943c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/faraday/ftgmac100.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/faraday/ftgmac100.c
> @@ -1928,6 +1928,11 @@ static int ftgmac100_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> /* AST2400 doesn't have working HW checksum generation */
> if (np && (of_device_is_compatible(np, "aspeed,ast2400-mac")))
> netdev->hw_features &= ~NETIF_F_HW_CSUM;
> +
> + /* AST2600 tx checksum with NC-SI is broken */
Does ASPEED have an internal bug for this, so should there be new
revisions of the AST2600, the bug can be fixed?
> + if (priv->use_ncsi && of_device_is_compatible(np, "aspeed,ast2600-mac"))
> + netdev->hw_features &= ~NETIF_F_HW_CSUM;
> +
I would fancy a note or even warning about this hardware issue.
> if (np && of_get_property(np, "no-hw-checksum", NULL))
> netdev->hw_features &= ~(NETIF_F_HW_CSUM | NETIF_F_RXCSUM);
> netdev->features |= netdev->hw_features;
Kind regards,
Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists