>-----Original Message----- >From: zhuyj [mailto:zyjzyj2...@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:49 PM >To: Tantilov, Emil S; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Brandeburg, Jesse; Nelson, >Shannon; Wyborny, Carolyn; Skidmore, Donald C; Allan, Bruce W; Ronciak, >John; Williams, Mitch A; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; >net...@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >Cc: Viswanathan, Ven (Wind River); Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River); Bourg, >Vincent (Wind River) >Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict synchronization >of link_up and speed > >On 12/30/2015 12:18 AM, Tantilov, Emil S wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-boun...@lists.osuosl.org] >On >>> Behalf Of zyjzyj2...@gmail.com >>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 6:32 PM >>> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Brandeburg, Jesse; Nelson, Shannon; Wyborny, >>> Carolyn; Skidmore, Donald C; Allan, Bruce W; Ronciak, John; Williams, >Mitch >>> A; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; net...@vger.kernel.org; e1000- >>> de...@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Cc: Viswanathan, Ven (Wind River); Shteinbock, Boris (Wind River); >Bourg, >>> Vincent (Wind River) >>> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/2] ixgbe: restrict synchronization >of >>> link_up and speed >>> >>> From: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun....@windriver.com> >>> >>> When the X540 NIC acts as a slave of some virtual NICs, it is very >>> important to synchronize link_up and link_speed, such as a bonding >>> driver in 802.3ad mode. When X540 NIC acts as an independent interface, >>> it is not necessary to synchronize link_up and link_speed. That is, >>> the time span between link_up and link_speed is acceptable. >> What exactly do you mean by "time span between link_up and link_speed"? > >In the previous mail, I show you some ethtool logs. In these logs, there >is some >time with NIC up while speed is unknown. I think this "some time" is >time span between >link_up and link_speed. Please see the previous mail for details.
Was this when reporting the link state from check_link() (reading the LINKS register) or reporting the adapter->link_speed? >> Where is it you think the de-synchronization occurs? > >When a NIC interface acts as a slave, a flag "IFF_SLAVE" is set in >netdevice struct. >Before we enter this function, we check IFF_SLAVE flag. If this flag is >set, we continue to check >link_speed. If not, this function is executed whether this link_speed is >unknown or not. I can already see this in your patch. I was asking about the reason why your change is needed. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun....@windriver.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c | 9 ++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>> index ace21b9..1bb6056 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c >>> @@ -6436,8 +6436,15 @@ static void ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up(struct >>> ixgbe_adapter *adapter) >>> * time. To X540 NIC, there is a time span between link_up and >>> * link_speed. As such, only continue if link_up and link_speed are >>> * ready to X540 NIC. >>> + * The time span between link_up and link_speed is very important >>> + * when the X540 NIC acts as a slave in some virtual NICs, such as >>> + * a bonding driver in 802.3ad mode. When X540 NIC acts as an >>> + * independent interface, it is not necessary to synchronize link_up >>> + * and link_speed. >>> + * In the end, not continue if (X540 NIC && SLAVE && link_speed >>> UNKNOWN) >> This is a patch on top of your previous patch which I don't think was >applied, >> so this is not going to apply cleanly. >> >>> */ >>> - if (hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_X540) >>> + if ((hw->mac.type == ixgbe_mac_X540) && >>> + (netdev->flags & IFF_SLAVE)) >>> if (link_speed == IXGBE_LINK_SPEED_UNKNOWN) >>> return; >> If you were to enter ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up() with unknown speed, then >I would >> assume that you also have a dmesg that shows: >> "NIC Link is Up unknown speed" >> >> by the interface you use in the bond? >Sure. There is a dmesg log from the customer. >" >... >2015-10-05T06:14:34.350 controller-0 kernel: info bonding: bond0: link >status definitely up for interface eth0, 0 Mbps full duplex. This message is from the bonding driver not from ixgbe. In your patch you are adding a check for unknown link to ixgbe_watchdog_link_is_up() if that condition was true then you should also see "unknown link" being reported by ixgbe. Thanks, Emil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
