Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:29:12 -0800 | From | "Matt Carlson" <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |