[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b30f34a1-48d6-4ff4-b375-d0eef5308261@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 16:34:48 -0700
From: David Decotigny <ddecotig@...il.com>
To: Joshua Hay <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net] idpf: extend tx watchdog timeout
On 6/3/2024 11:47 AM, Joshua Hay wrote:
>
> There are several reasons for a TX completion to take longer than usual
> to be written back by HW. For example, the completion for a packet that
> misses a rule will have increased latency. The side effect of these
> variable latencies for any given packet is out of order completions. The
> stack sends packet X and Y. If packet X takes longer because of the rule
> miss in the example above, but packet Y hits, it can go on the wire
> immediately. Which also means it can be completed first. The driver
> will then receive a completion for packet Y before packet X. The driver
> will stash the buffers for packet X in a hash table to allow the tx send
> queue descriptors for both packet X and Y to be reused. The driver will
> receive the completion for packet X sometime later and have to search
> the hash table for the associated packet.
>
> The driver cleans packets directly on the ring first, i.e. not out of
> order completions since they are to some extent considered "slow(er)
> path". However, certain workloads can increase the frequency of out of
> order completions thus introducing even more latency into the cleaning
> path. Bump up the timeout value to account for these workloads.
>
> Fixes: 0fe45467a104 ("idpf: add create vport and netdev configuration")
> Reviewed-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joshua Hay <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_lib.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
We tested this patch with our intensive high-performance workloads that
have been able to reproduce the issue, and it was sufficient to avoid tx
timeouts. We also noticed that these longer timeouts are not unusual in
the smartnic space: we see 100s or 50s timeouts for a few NICs, and
other NICs receive this timeout as a hint from the fw.
Reviewed-by: David Decotigny <ddecotig@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists