>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Greear [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:02 PM
>To: Wyborny, Carolyn
>Cc: e1000-devel list
>Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Question on igb and rx-fcs.
>
>On 02/24/2012 12:50 PM, Wyborny, Carolyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wyborny, Carolyn [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:30 PM
>>> To: Ben Greear
>>> Cc: e1000-devel list
>>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Question on igb and rx-fcs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ben Greear [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:30 PM
>>>> To: Wyborny, Carolyn
>>>> Cc: e1000-devel list
>>>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Question on igb and rx-fcs.
>>>>
>>>> On 02/21/2012 04:23 PM, Wyborny, Carolyn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ben Greear [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:09 AM
>>>>>> To: Wyborny, Carolyn
>>>>>> Cc: e1000-devel list
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Question on igb and rx-fcs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/21/2012 09:51 AM, Wyborny, Carolyn wrote:
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Ben Greear [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 3:09 PM
>>>>>>>> To: e1000-devel list
>>>>>>>> Subject: [E1000-devel] Question on igb and rx-fcs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to write a patch to allow rx-fcs on the igb driver
>>>>>>>> (82580 chipset).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried the patch below, but when I then enable rx-fcs, traffic
>>>>>>>> rx breaks and I see Rx-FIFO error counts increasing.  I'm
>testing
>>>>>>>> with 1024 byte UDP payloads, at 56kpbs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, if anyone sees an obvious problem with the patch, please
>>>>>>>> let me know...but more importantly, what developer's manual
>>>>>>>> is valid for the igb supported hardware?  I found the
>'316080.pdf'
>>>>>>>> that seems valid for e1000e, but I'm not sure it works for igb
>>>>>>>> as well?
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The hardware can behave differently for a given feature and the
>igb
>>>>>> drivers supports a different set of hardware than e1000e.  For
>igb,
>>>> we
>>>>>> support 82575 and greater (82576, 82580, i350).  The best bet is
>the
>>>>>> Datasheet for the 825XX you're working with.  Here's the datasheet
>>>> for
>>>>>> 82580.
>>> http://download.intel.com/design/network/datashts/321027.pdf.
>>>>>> I'll take a look at your patch and the datasheet as well and see
>if
>>> I
>>>>>> can find anything to help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the datasheet pointer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did a quick search for SECRC, and section 8.8.2.7 mentions the
>>>> SECRC
>>>>>> bits are
>>>>>> ignored if some virtual machine logic is enabled.  I'm not using
>any
>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>> machines, but perhaps that logic is enabled anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>> [..]
>>>>> Yeah, it shouldn't be enabled though if you aren't configuring the
>>>> virtualization nor using a virtualized os. Hmm.., seems that
>>>> rx_fifo_errors is an accumulation stat and I think there's also a
>typo
>>>> in that spec as it lists a stat that doesn't exist anywhere else in
>the
>>>> document.  I'll dig around a bit more on this, but basically, as you
>>> can
>>>> probably see, you're dropping those packets.  If you set the
>RCTL_SBP
>>>> bit in the driver, you can accumulate the different errors and see
>>>> exactly what is going wrong there.  I could give you a patch to do
>>> that.
>>>> Are you using upstream in kernel version or a standalone version of
>the
>>>> igb driver?
>>>>
>>>> I already wrote a patch to do SBP part, and will post it and the
>ones
>>>> for ixgbe after we do some more internal testing.
>>>>
>>>> And, I no longer see the rx-fifo errors after I properly reset the
>chip
>>>> when enabling the 'rx-fcs' logic.  (In the patch I posted, I was
>just
>>>> twiddling
>>>> the register in the set_features() method, which appears to be a bad
>>>> idea).
>>>>
>>>> But, though I receive packets just fine, I do NOT see the 4 bytes of
>>> FCS
>>>> on
>>>> the end.
>>>>
>>> [..]
>>> I checked around a bit and there's no reason I can see why this isn't
>>> working, so I raised the issue with our internal hw support team.
>I'll
>>> let you know what I find.  There's nothing much to do here in sw, but
>>> make sure that bit is unset, rest is up to the hw.  If you're seeing
>>> this with e1000e, then I assume your sniffer setup is identical and
>>> correct.
>> [...]
>>
>> Another question comes to mind.  Have you tried this with another part
>supported by igb or just the 82580?  There could be something that is
>common in the driver that affects this, like the strip bit getting re-
>enabled at some point during the process.  Perhaps an outputting of that
>register during rx might be useful.  Also, exactly how are you examining
>the packets?  Wireshark, tcpdump or some other way?
>
>I tried with two different 4-port NICs
>
>...
>02:00.3 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation Device 1521 (rev 01)
>03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82580 Gigabit Network
>Connection (rev 01)
>...
>
>Same behaviour with both.
>
>I was using tshark to capture, wireshark to view the .pcap file,
>and I also added enough printk to the driver to determine that
>the length was 4 less than expected when rx-crc was enabled.
>
>I also dumped the rx-control register, and it appeared I had it set up
>as expected.
>
>The bulk of the patches have been accepted so should show up in net-next
>soon.
>

Thanks for that info Ben, I'll try to get it reproduced in house and if so, 
I'll open an issue with hardware support.

Carolyn


>Thanks,
>Ben
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Carolyn
>>
>> Carolyn Wyborny
>> Linux Development
>> LAN Access Division
>> Intel Corporation
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Ben Greear <[email protected]>
>Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing 
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit 
http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

Reply via email to