lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid not used
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:20:01PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 07 janvier 2011 ?? 00:34 +0100, Eric Dumazet a ??crit :
> > Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 ?? 16:01 -0500, Jesse Gross a ??crit :
> >
> > > Hmm, I thought that it might be some interaction with a corner case in
> > > the networking core but now it seems less likely. There weren't too
> > > many vlan changes between the working and non-working states. Plus,
> > > since the rx counter isn't increasing, the packets probably aren't
> > > making it anywhere.
> > >
> > > I see that tg3 increases the drop counter in one place, which also
> > > happens to be checking for vlan errors (at tg3.c:4753). That seems
> > > suspicious - maybe the NIC is only partially configured for vlan
> > > offloading. If we can confirm that is where the drop counter is being
> > > incremented and what the error code is maybe it would shed some light.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm... I am pretty sure the drop counter is the dev rx_dropped (core
> > network handled, not tg3 one) incremented at the end of
> > __netif_receive_skb() : We found no suitable handler for packets.
> >
> > atomic_long_inc(&skb->dev->rx_dropped);
> >
> > But thats a guess, I'll have to check
> >
>
> wrong guess. Its really the tg3 which drops frames
>
> increasing rx_missed_errors (get_stat64(&hw_stats->rx_discards)
>
> ip -s -s link show dev eth2
> 5: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,SLAVE,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc mq
> master bond0 state UP qlen 1000
> link/ether 00:1e:0b:92:78:50 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> RX: bytes packets errors dropped overrun mcast
> 11627 167 0 0 0 2
> RX errors: length crc frame fifo missed
> 0 0 0 0 2713
> TX: bytes packets errors dropped carrier collsns
> 2274 31 0 0 0 0
> TX errors: aborted fifo window heartbeat
> 0 0 0 0
>
>
>
> It would be nice Broadcom guys could help a bit ?

Hi Eric. Sorry for the delay. I was under the impression that your
problems were software related and that you just needed a revised
version of these VLAN patches I was sending to Michael. Is this not
true?

Having a hardware stat increment suggests this is a new problem.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see what hardware you are working
with and whether or not management firmware was enabled. Could you tell
me that info?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-07 03:31    [W:0.123 / U:0.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site