Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have had my validation engineer busy all day, we have tried both
a 9 kernel as well as 8.2, using the code from HEAD, and we
cannot
OK, but what this does not explain is why I do not see this if
its so easily reproduced, what causes the failure case, any idea?
As I said, given the code was not feasible for igb anyway I would not
be unhappy about returning to the old way of doing things.
Jack
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:03
Hello,
2011/5/4 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Olivier Smedts oliv...@gid0.org wrote:
em0: Using an MSI interrupt
em0: Ethernet address: d4:85:64:b2:aa:f5
em0: Could not setup receive structures
em0: Could not setup receive structures
What can we
Hello,
(sorry for dual posting)
2011/5/4 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
I have had my validation engineer busy all day, we have tried both
a 9 kernel as well as 8.2, using the code from HEAD, and we
cannot reproduce this problem.
The data your netstat -m shows suggests to me that what's
Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, but what this does not explain is why I do not see this if
its so easily reproduced, what causes the failure case, any idea?
It is completely random as it depends on the content of the stack. I
spent 3 or 4 hours
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Alastair Hogge a...@fastmail.fm wrote:
[.]
I also tried 2x, 4x 25600 for max mbuff clusters via kern.ipc.nmbclusters.
This didn't help.
For the record, I did the math yestarday, checked the code. By
default, a machine with 6 82574L-backed em(4) interfaces,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, but what this does not explain is why I do not see this if
its so easily reproduced, what causes the failure case, any idea?
It is
2011/5/5 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
Anyway, I see the problematic code path, its only when
you skip the while loop altogether. I'm surprised the compiler
did not complain about this, its usually so anal.
Could it be related to the compiler (clang) or some optimization flags ?
--
Olivier
Not sure, I wondered if those seeing this had some special sequence of
actions they took for granted that is different than what we do in house...
In any case, the init really is ultimately a correctness thing, so let's
just
call it good :)
Jack
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Olivier Smedts
2011/5/4 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
It has nothing to do with load, it has to do with the prerequisites to init
your interfaces.
The amount you need is fixed, it doesn't vary with load. Every RX descriptor
needs one,
so its simple math, number-of-interfaces X number-of-queues X size of the
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:50:53PM +0200, Michael Schmiedgen wrote:
On 03.05.2011 23:24, Jack Vogel wrote:
If you get the setup receive structures fail, then increase the nmbclusters.
If you use standard MTU then what you need are mbufs, and standard size
clusters (2K).
Only when you
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Olivier Smedts oliv...@gid0.org wrote:
em0: Using an MSI interrupt
em0: Ethernet address: d4:85:64:b2:aa:f5
em0: Could not setup receive structures
em0: Could not setup receive structures
What can we do to help you debug this ?
At some point in time, in
Hi,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Olivier Smedts oliv...@gid0.org wrote:
2011/5/4 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
A more rude version might be Why the frak my network adapter stopped
working with the default setting ? :)
...on a -STABLE branch
Maybe you should not have picked the rude
No, I do not Arnaud. But I refuse to rise to rude and uncivil behavior. Its
your
behavior again and again which causes you to not get responses, not my
willingness to help and respond to those that behave like respectful
customers
and adults.
Jack
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Arnaud
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I do not Arnaud. But I refuse to rise to rude and uncivil behavior. Its
your
behavior again and again which causes you to not get responses, not my
willingness to help and respond to those that behave like respectful
2011/5/4 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Obviously, I am no longer the only one finding that em(4) has
unacceptable issue, this thread is the proof.
Right, and Jack seems to be willing to help, he asked something (I'll
reply tomorrow when I'll be in front of the hardware) and is trying to
I have had my validation engineer busy all day, we have tried both
a 9 kernel as well as 8.2, using the code from HEAD, and we
cannot reproduce this problem.
The data your netstat -m shows suggests to me that what's happening
is somehow setup of the receive ring is running more than once maybe??
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have had my validation engineer busy all day, we have tried both
a 9 kernel as well as 8.2, using the code from HEAD, and we
cannot reproduce this problem.
The data your netstat -m shows suggests to me that what's
Hi,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have had my validation engineer busy all day, we have tried both
a 9 kernel as well as 8.2, using the code from HEAD, and we
cannot reproduce this problem.
Actually, it can be trivially reproduced by tainting `error'.
Hello,
2011/4/27 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
If you get cannot setup receive structures you cannot go on and try to
use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the driver.
I tried increasing
If you get the setup receive structures fail, then increase the nmbclusters.
If you use standard MTU then what you need are mbufs, and standard size
clusters (2K).
Only when you use jumbo frames will you need larger.
You must configure enough, its that simple.
Jack
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:13
Hi,
I have the very same problem.
- GENERIC 9.0-CURRENT (April 28)
- em0 PRO/1000 7.2.3
- em0: Could not setup receive structures
On 03.05.2011 10:58, Olivier Smedts wrote:
I tried increasing kern.ipc.nmbjumbo* (is it what you suggested ?).
Values doubled :
kern.ipc.nmbjumbo16: 6400
On 03.05.2011 23:24, Jack Vogel wrote:
If you get the setup receive structures fail, then increase the nmbclusters.
If you use standard MTU then what you need are mbufs, and standard size
clusters (2K).
Only when you use jumbo frames will you need larger.
You must configure enough, its that
It has nothing to do with load, it has to do with the prerequisites to init
your interfaces.
The amount you need is fixed, it doesn't vary with load. Every RX descriptor
needs one,
so its simple math, number-of-interfaces X number-of-queues X size of the
ring.
If you have other network interfaces
2011/5/4 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
A more rude version might be Why the frak my network adapter stopped
working with the default setting ? :)
...on a -STABLE branch
--
Olivier Smedts _
ASCII
Hi Jack,
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
It has nothing to do with load, it has to do with the prerequisites to init
your interfaces.
The amount you need is fixed, it doesn't vary with load. Every RX descriptor
needs one,
so its simple math,
2011/3/31 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
This problem happens for only one reason, you have insufficient mbufs to
fill your rx ring. Its odd that it would differ when its static versus a
loadable
module though!
With the 7.2.2 driver you also will use different mbuf pools depending on
the MTU
If you get cannot setup receive structures you cannot go on and try to
use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the driver.
Jack
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Olivier Smedts oliv...@gid0.org wrote:
2011/4/27 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
If you get cannot setup receive structures you cannot go on and try to
use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the driver.
Thanks for your answer. I'll try and let
On 4/27/2011 2:35 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2011/4/27 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
If you get cannot setup receive structures you cannot go on and try to
use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
your receive side, you simply have to increase it and reload the
2011/4/27 Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net:
On 4/27/2011 2:35 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2011/4/27 Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
If you get cannot setup receive structures you cannot go on and try to
use the thing :) It means you have inadequate mbuf clusters to setup
your receive side, you simply
On 4/27/2011 2:45 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Are you testing with what is in HEAD ? ie. 7.2.3 or something else ?
Your subject line implies something else.
I'm using what's in HEAD since r219753, the commit which updated the
em driver from version 7.1.9 to 7.2.2 and broke it at least for me.
Yes Mike, already have had a couple others bug me to get the MFC, I'm hoping
to get it in this week :)
Jack
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net wrote:
On 4/27/2011 2:45 PM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Are you testing with what is in HEAD ? ie. 7.2.3 or something else ?
Hello,
I've got a problem under FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT amd64 with the em driver.
It's loaded as a module. I was previously using r219710 (2011-03-17)
without any problem, but with latest HEAD I can't even send a ping.
Here's what appears in dmesg. I tried unloading / loading the module,
did not
On 3/31/2011 11:20 AM, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Hello,
I've got a problem under FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT amd64 with the em driver.
It's loaded as a module. I was previously using r219710 (2011-03-17)
without any problem, but with latest HEAD I can't even send a ping.
Here's what appears in dmesg. I
This problem happens for only one reason, you have insufficient mbufs to
fill your rx ring. Its odd that it would differ when its static versus a
loadable
module though!
With the 7.2.2 driver you also will use different mbuf pools depending on
the MTU you are using. If you use jumbo frames it
36 matches
Mail list logo
