lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [E1000-devel] [TCP]: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT causes leak sockets
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
    >
    >> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
    >> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:27:06 +0200
    >>
    >>> when i originally reported it i debugged it back to missing e1000 TX
    >>> completion IRQs. I tried various versions of the driver to figure
    >>> out whether new workarounds for e1000 cover it but it was fruitless.
    >>> There is a 1000 msec internal watchdog timer IRQ within e1000 that
    >>> gets things going if it's stuck.
    >> Then that explains your latency, the chip is getting stuck and TX
    >> interrupts stop, right.
    >
    > note that the 1000 msecs timer is AFAIK internal to the e1000
    > _hardware_, not the driver itself. I.e. probably the firmware detects
    > and works around a hung transmitter. This is not detectable from the OS
    > (it's not an OS timer), but it can be observed by a lot of testing on a
    > totally quiescent system - which i did back then ;-)
    >
    > i also played a lot with the various knobs of the e1000, none of which
    > seemed to help.
    >
    > /me digs in archives
    >
    > i reported it to the e1000 folks in 2006:
    >
    > Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:24:00 +0100
    >
    > against 2.6.19. The original report is below - with a trace and various
    > things i tried to debug this.
    >
    > i eventually got the suggestion from Auke to set RxIntDelay=8 which
    > seemed to work around the issue - but since i use a built-in driver i
    > dont have that setting here (RxIntDelay=8 is a module load parameter and
    > not exposed via Kconfig methods) and the e1000 driver does not seem to
    > have changed its default setting for RxIntDelay.
    >
    > 2.6.18-1.2849.fc6 was the last kernel that worked fine.
    >
    > Ingo
    >
    > -------------------->
    > Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:09:22 +0100
    > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
    > To: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>
    > Subject: Re: e1000: 2.6.19 & long packet latencies
    > Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
    > "Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@intel.com>
    >
    > Jesse, et al.,
    >
    > i'm having a weird packet processing latency problem with the e1000
    > driver and recent kernels.
    >
    > The symptom is this: if i connect to a T60 laptop (which has an on-board
    > e1000) from the outside, i see large delays in network activity, and ssh
    > sessions are very sluggish.
    >
    > ping latencies show it best under a dynticks kernel (but vanilla 2.6.19
    > is affected too):
    >
    > titan:~/linux/linux> ping e
    > PING europe (10.0.1.15) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.340 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=757 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1001 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1001 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.356 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=2127 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1002 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.320 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1002 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=2004 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1002 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.303 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1000 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=2010 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=1009 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.283 ms
    >
    > i have traced this and the 1000/2000 msecs values come from some sort of
    > e1000-internal 'heartbeat' interrupt. What seems to happen is that RX
    > packet processing is delayed indefinitely and the IRQ just does not
    > arrive.
    >
    > NOTE: the vanilla 2.6.19 kernel shows this too, but the ping delays are
    > 1/HZ.
    >
    > here's a (filtered) trace of such a delay. IRQ 0x219 is the e1000
    > interrupt:
    >
    > <idle>-0 0D.h1 761236us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 761412us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 761416us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 761418us+: e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > <idle>-0 0D.h1 2760093us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 2760268us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 2760273us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 2760275us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > <idle>-0 0D.h1 3804499us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804674us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804679us+: e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804761us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804763us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3804765us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > softirq--7 0.... 3804810us : net_rx_action (ksoftirqd)
    > softirq--5 0D.h. 3805425us : do_IRQ (c01598ac 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805499us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805504us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805506us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805547us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 3805549us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > softirq--6 0.... 3805641us : net_tx_action (ksoftirqd)
    > <idle>-0 0D.h1 4760910us : do_IRQ (c01451d4 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 4761347us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 4761352us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 4761353us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > <idle>-0 0D.h1 6761309us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 6761483us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 6761488us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 6761490us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > softirq--5 0D.h. 8760595us : do_IRQ (c0135dc4 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760676us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760681us+: e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760739us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760740us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8760742us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > softirq--7 0.... 8760885us : net_rx_action (ksoftirqd)
    > softirq--7 0.... 8760914us+: icmp_rcv (ip_local_deliver)
    > softirq--7 0.... 8760923us+: icmp_reply (icmp_echo)
    > <idle>-0 0D.h1 8761661us : do_IRQ (c0272a9b 219 0)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761833us+: e1000_intr (handle_IRQ_event)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761838us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761840us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761875us : e1000_clean_rx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > IRQ_219-356 0.... 8761876us : e1000_clean_tx_irq (e1000_intr)
    > softirq--6 0.... 8761921us : net_tx_action (ksoftirqd)
    >
    > note that timestamps 2760093us, 4760910us, 6761309us and 8760595us is
    > some sort of traffic-independent 'periodic' interrupt that e1000
    > generates. That 'housekeeping' interrupt doesnt seem to be doing much.
    > The IRQ at 8760595us picks up an icmp packet and replies to it - but the
    > icmp packet in reality arrived somewhere between timestamps 6761309us
    > and 8760595us - but no IRQ was generated for it!
    >
    > Suspecting the interrupt-rate controlling bits of the e1000 hw i have
    > tried the following tunes too:
    >
    > -#define DEFAULT_RDTR 0
    > +#define DEFAULT_RDTR 1
    >
    > -#define DEFAULT_RADV 128
    > +#define DEFAULT_RADV 1
    >
    > -#define DEFAULT_TIDV 64
    > +#define DEFAULT_TIDV 1
    >
    > -#define DEFAULT_TADV 64
    > +#define DEFAULT_TADV 1
    >
    > -#define DEFAULT_ITR 8000
    > +#define DEFAULT_ITR 100000
    >
    > but they made no difference.
    >
    > a 2.6.18-ish kernel works fine (2.6.18-1.2849.fc6):
    >
    > titan:~/linux/linux> ping e
    > PING europe (10.0.1.15) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.695 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.184 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.159 ms
    > 64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.148 ms
    >
    > e1000: 0000:02:00.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) 00:16:41:17:49:d2
    > e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
    >
    > the precise hardware version is:
    >
    > 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82573L Gigabit Ethernet Controller
    > Subsystem: Lenovo ThinkPad T60
    > Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 90
    > Memory at ee000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K]
    > I/O ports at 2000 [size=32]
    > Capabilities: <access denied>
    >
    > this laptop has a CoreDuo so i have tried maxcpus=1 too, but it didnt
    > make any difference.
    >
    > Any ideas about what i should try next?
    >

    have you tried e1000e?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-18 21:01    [W:0.039 / U:59.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site