On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:34:58PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>
>
> On 03/27/2017 07:44 PM, Joao Pinto wrote:
> > Às 6:28 PM de 3/27/2017, David Miller escreveu:
> >> From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montj...@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:00:58 +0200
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 04:26:48PM +0100, Joao Pinto wrote:
> >>>> Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Às 7:26 AM de 3/25/2017, Corentin Labbe escreveu:
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 05:16:45PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
> >>>>>> For cores that have more than 1 TX queue configured, the kernel would
> >>>>>> crash,
> >>>>>> since only one TX queue is permitted by default.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpi...@synopsys.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> >>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> >>>>>> index 3827952..1eab084 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> >>>>>> @@ -3429,7 +3429,7 @@ static int stmmac_poll(struct napi_struct *napi,
> >>>>>> int budget)
> >>>>>> struct stmmac_rx_queue *rx_q =
> >>>>>> container_of(napi, struct stmmac_rx_queue, napi);
> >>>>>> struct stmmac_priv *priv = rx_q->priv_data;
> >>>>>> - u32 tx_count = priv->dma_cap.number_tx_queues;
> >>>>>> + u32 tx_count = priv->plat->tx_queues_to_use;
> >>>>>> u32 chan = rx_q->queue_index;
> >>>>>> u32 work_done = 0;
> >>>>>> u32 queue = 0;
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.9.3
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch fix the performance issue on dwmac-sun8i only.
> >>>>> The dwmac-sunxi is still broken.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch series can be upstreamed please, since they make 2 fixes, one
> >>>> of them
> >>>> solving the problem in dwmac-sun8i.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> As I said in a previous answer, finaly dwmac-sun8i is still broken.
> >>> Adding thoses 2 patch will just made the revert harder.
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >
> > For what I am understanding, SoCs base on Core versions >= 4.00 are working
> > properly and for some reason SoCs based on older versions are not working.
> >
> > This fix is necessary, since if you have a diferent configured
> > tx_queues_to_use
> > in the driver and priv->dma_cap.number_tx_queues in the core, this can lead
> > to
> > kernel crashes.
> >
> > The other fix (netdev resources release) is also necessary, since when you
> > release the driver its crashes, because the rx queue struct is freed before
> > releasing the netdevs.
> >
> > We can revert, but I think it might not solve the issue. We can break the
> > "multiple buffers" patch into "rx multilple buffers" and "tx multiple
> > buffers",
> > but will that actually work? We can give it a try, I don't mind making a new
> > multiple buffers patch broken into 2, that can be tested by new cores and
> > older
> > cores.
>
> I've hit a bug on stmmac where RX is broken after boot.
> Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
> I usually notice that DHCP never receives an offer,
> but it's possible to reproduce the problem without DHCP,
> where a simple ping will not work after setting an address manually.
>
> I've bisected it to commit aff3d9eff843 ("net: stmmac: enable multiple
> buffers").
> (Note that I had to cherry-pick 22446ad8e118 ("net: stmmac: Restore DT
> backwards-compatibility")
> to avoid TX queue timeouts, and the patch included in the beginning of this
> mail thread "net: stmmac: fix number of tx queues in stmmac_poll" to avoid
> random crashes in stmmac_tx_clean.
>
> Looking at wireshark I can see that we send out a DHCP discover,
> so TX seems to be working.
> A DHCP offer is sent out from the server, but it is never received.
>
> Our setup has 1 RX queue and 2 TX queues.
> According to the databook, the field Receive Queue Size in register
> MTL_RxQ0_Operation_Mode is read-only when number of RX queues == 1,
> so I guess the problem is not related to RX queue size.
> It's quite annoying since it does not trigger every single boot.
>
> Has anyone else noticed broken RX after boot since commit aff3d9eff843 and
> newer?Yeah, I've been hitting the same, or at least very similar, issue. I'm going to attach my local stack of three patches, of which the first is only cleanup, the second is the same as the one that Joao had sent out earlier and patch three seems to be the one that gets things back on track for me. I haven't quite figured out why yet, but it'd be interesting to see if it fixes things for others. Thierry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
