[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef87bd20-6fda-4839-8cff-4ab10bf500a7@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:10:09 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com>
CC: <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, Gerhard Engleder <eg@...a.com>,
Vitaly Lifshits <vitaly.lifshits@...el.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] e1000e: Fix real-time violations on link up
On 12/3/24 21:28, Gerhard Engleder wrote:
> From: Gerhard Engleder <eg@...a.com>
>
> From: Gerhard Engleder <eg@...a.com>
duplicated From: line
>
> Link down and up triggers update of MTA table. This update executes many
> PCIe writes and a final flush. Thus, PCIe will be blocked until all writes
> are flushed. As a result, DMA transfers of other targets suffer from delay
> in the range of 50us. This results in timing violations on real-time
> systems during link down and up of e1000e.
>
> A flush after a low enough number of PCIe writes eliminates the delay
> but also increases the time needed for MTA table update. The following
> measurements were done on i3-2310E with e1000e for 128 MTA table entries:
>
> Single flush after all writes: 106us
> Flush after every write: 429us
> Flush after every 2nd write: 266us
> Flush after every 4th write: 180us
> Flush after every 8th write: 141us
> Flush after every 16th write: 121us
>
> A flush after every 8th write delays the link up by 35us and the
> negative impact to DMA transfers of other targets is still tolerable.
>
> Execute a flush after every 8th write. This prevents overloading the
> interconnect with posted writes. As this also increases the time spent for
> MTA table update considerable this change is limited to PREEMPT_RT.
hmm, why to limit this to PREEMPT_RT, the change sounds resonable also
for the standard kernel, at last for me
(perhaps with every 16th write instead)
with that said, I'm fine with this patch as is too
>
> Signed-off-by: Gerhard Engleder <eg@...a.com>
would be good to add link to your RFC
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/f8fe665a-5e6c-4f95-b47a-2f3281aa0e6c@lunn.ch/T/
and also CC Vitaly who participated there (done),
same for IWL mailing list (also CCd), and use iwl-next tag for your
future contributions to intel ethernet
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c
> index d7df2a0ed629..7a2c10a4ecc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c
> @@ -331,8 +331,14 @@ void e1000e_update_mc_addr_list_generic(struct e1000_hw *hw,
> }
>
> /* replace the entire MTA table */
> - for (i = hw->mac.mta_reg_count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> + for (i = hw->mac.mta_reg_count - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> E1000_WRITE_REG_ARRAY(hw, E1000_MTA, i, hw->mac.mta_shadow[i]);
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> + /* do not queue up too many writes */
> + if ((i % 8) == 0 && i != 0)
> + e1e_flush();
> + }
> + }
> e1e_flush();
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists