On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:07:38PM -0400, Terry Moore wrote:
>
> This is not 2.5G Transfers per second. PCIe talks about transactions rather
> than transfers; one transaction requires either 12 bytes (for 32-bit
> systems) or 16 bytes (for 64-bit systems) of overhead at the transaction
> layer, pl
On 2014/09/04 11:24, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
On 2014/09/04 0:40, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:11:29PM +0200, Bert Kiers wrote:
NetBSD 6.1 says:
vendor 0x8086 product 0x1528 (ethernet network, revision 0x01) at pci1 dev 0
function 0 not configured
In src/sys/dev/pci/ixgbe
On 2014/09/04 0:40, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:11:29PM +0200, Bert Kiers wrote:
NetBSD 6.1 says:
vendor 0x8086 product 0x1528 (ethernet network, revision 0x01) at pci1 dev 0
function 0 not configured
In src/sys/dev/pci/ixgbe/ we know about producct Id 0x1529 and 0x152A
>From Emmanuel Dreyfus
> You are right;
> # pcictl /dev/pci5 read -d 0 -f 1 0xa8
> 00092810
> # pcictl /dev/pci5 write -d 0 -f 1 0xa8 0x00094810
> # pcictl /dev/pci5 read -d 0 -f 1 0xa8
> 4810
That's reassuring. The dump confirms that we're looking at the right
registers, thank you.
As I read
> -Original Message-
> From: Hisashi T Fujinaka [mailto:ht...@twofifty.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:39
> To: Terry Moore
> Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
> Subject: RE: FW: ixg(4) performances
>
> I may be wrong in the transactions/transfers. However, I th
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:11:29PM +0200, Bert Kiers wrote:
> NetBSD 6.1 says:
> vendor 0x8086 product 0x1528 (ethernet network, revision 0x01) at pci1 dev 0
> function 0 not configured
In src/sys/dev/pci/ixgbe/ we know about producct Id 0x1529 and 0x152A but
not 0x1528. But this can probably be
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:11:29PM +0200, Bert Kiers wrote:
> NetBSD 6.1 says:
>
> vendor 0x8086 product 0x1528 (ethernet network, revision 0x01) at pci1 dev 0
> function 0 not configured
>
> Complete messages: http://netbsd.itsx.net/hw/x9drw.dmesg
>
> NetBSD current from today also does not co
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:24:52AM +0100, Justin Cormack wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:22:31PM -0400, Terry Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> Is the ixg in an expansion slot or integrated onto the main board?
> >
> > If you know where to g
Hi, Emmanuel.
On 2014/09/01 11:10, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Terry Moore wrote:
>
>> Since you did a dword read, the extra 0x9 is the device status register.
>> This makes me suspicious as the device status register is claiming that you
>> have "unsupported request detected)" [bit 3] and "co
Terry Moore wrote:
> Since you did a dword read, the extra 0x9 is the device status register.
> This makes me suspicious as the device status register is claiming that you
> have "unsupported request detected)" [bit 3] and "correctable error
> detected" [bit 0]. Further, this register is RW1
Oh, and to answer the actual first, relevant question, I can try finding
out if we (day job, 82599) can do line rate at 2.5GT/s. I think we can
get a lot closer than you're getting but we don't test with NetBSD.
--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@twofifty.com
BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 =
rate is not used
when talking about the max data transfer rate.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014, Terry Moore wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hisashi T Fujinaka [mailto:ht...@twofifty.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 21:29
To: Terry Moore
Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: FW: ixg(4) perform
> -Original Message-
> From: Hisashi T Fujinaka [mailto:ht...@twofifty.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 21:29
> To: Terry Moore
> Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
> Subject: Re: FW: ixg(4) performances
>
> Doesn't anyone read my posts or, more important,
s'
Subject: RE: ixg(4) performances
But it's running at gen1. I strongly suspect that the benchmark case
was
gen2 (since the ixg is capable of it).
gen1 vs gen2 is 2.5 Gb.s vs 5 Gb/s?
Yes. Actually, 2.5Gbps is symbol rate -- it's 8/10 encoded, so one lane is
really 2Gbps. S
Forgot to cc the list.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Moore [mailto:t...@mcci.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 15:13
To: 'Emmanuel Dreyfus'
Subject: RE: ixg(4) performances
> > But it's running at gen1. I strongly suspect that the benchmark case
> > was
Matthias Drochner wrote:
> > Link Capabilities Ragister (0xAC): 0x00027482
> > bits 3:0 Supprted Link speed: 0010 = 5 GbE and 2.5 GbE speed
> > supported bits 9:4 Max link width: 001000 = x4
>
> Wrong -- this means x8.
>
> > bits 14:12 L0s exit lattency: 101 = 1 µs - 2 µs
> > bits 17:15 L1
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:51:14 +
Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> I found this, but the result does not make sense: negociated > max ...
>
> Link Capabilities Ragister (0xAC): 0x00027482
> bits 3:0 Supprted Link speed: 0010 = 5 GbE and 2.5 GbE speed
> supported bits 9:4 Max link width: 001000 = x
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:22:31PM -0400, Terry Moore wrote:
>>
>> Is the ixg in an expansion slot or integrated onto the main board?
>
> If you know where to get a mainboard with an integrated ixg, I wouldn't
> mind hearing about it.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:22:31PM -0400, Terry Moore wrote:
>
> Is the ixg in an expansion slot or integrated onto the main board?
If you know where to get a mainboard with an integrated ixg, I wouldn't
mind hearing about it.
Thor
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Terry Moore wrote:
But it's running at gen1. I strongly suspect that the benchmark case was
gen2 (since the ixg is capable of it).
gen1 vs gen2 is 2.5 Gb.s bs 5 Gb/s?
Gen 1 is capable of only 2.5GT/s (gigatransfers per second). Gen 2 is
capable
Terry Moore wrote:
> But it's running at gen1. I strongly suspect that the benchmark case was
> gen2 (since the ixg is capable of it).
gen1 vs gen2 is 2.5 Gb.s bs 5 Gb/s?
> Is the ixg in an expansion slot or integrated onto the main board?
In a slot.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 11:51, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:48:51AM -0400, Terry Moore wrote:
> > Still, you should check whether you have the right number of the right
> > generation of PCIe lanes connected to the ixg.
>
> I found this, but the result does not make
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:48:51AM -0400, Terry Moore wrote:
> Still, you should check whether you have the right number of the right
> generation of PCIe lanes connected to the ixg.
I found this, but the result does not make sense: negociated > max ...
Link Capabilities Ragister (0xAC): 0x00027
> -Original Message-
> From: tech-kern-ow...@netbsd.org [mailto:tech-kern-ow...@netbsd.org] On
> Behalf Of Emmanuel Dreyfus
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 23:55
> To: Terry Moore; 'Christos Zoulas'
> Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
> Subject: Re: ixg(4) perfo
Terry Moore wrote:
> There are several possibilities, all revolving about differences between the
> blog poster's base system and yorus.
Do I have a way to investigate for appropriate PCI setup? Here is what
dmesg says about it:
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1
pci0: i/o space, memo
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 08:37:06AM -0700, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> Isn't your PCIe slot constrained? I thought I remembered that you're
> only getting 2.5GT/s and I forget what test you're running.
I use netperf, and I now get 2.7 Gb/s.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:57:37PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I also found this page that tackles the same problem on Linux:
http://dak1n1.com/blog/7-performance-tuning-intel-10gbe
It seems that page describe a slightly different model.
Intel 82
In article <20140828072832.gi8...@homeworld.netbsd.org>,
Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:40:25PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>> New version with some changes suggested by wiz@.
>
>Anyone has objection to this change being committed and pulled up to
>netbsd-7?
>
Not me.
c
> Or the performance are constrained by something unrelated. In the blog
> post cited above, the poster acheived more than 5 Gb/s before touching
> MMRBC, while I am stuck at 2,7 GB/s. Any new idea welcome.
The blog post refers to PCI-X, I'm more familiar with PCIe, but the concepts
are similar.
What is your test setup? Do you have 2 identical boxes?
Does it perform better e.g. on Linux or FreeBSD? If so, you could
check how the config registers get set by that particular OS.
2014-08-28 9:26 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Dreyfus :
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:57:37PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:40:25PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> New version with some changes suggested by wiz@.
Anyone has objection to this change being committed and pulled up to
netbsd-7?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:57:37PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >I also found this page that tackles the same problem on Linux:
> >http://dak1n1.com/blog/7-performance-tuning-intel-10gbe
It seems that page describe a slightly different model.
Intel 82599 datasheet is available here:
http://www.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:40:25PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>How about the attached patch? I've been sitting on this for months.
Both changes seem fine, but the board does not behave as told by
Linux crowd. At 0xe6 is a nul value where we should have 0x22,
and attemps to change it does
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> MTU 9000 considered harmful. Use something that fits in 8K with the headers.
> It's a minor piece of the puzzle but nonetheless, it's a piece.
mtu 8192 or 8000 does not cause any improvement over mtu 9000.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd
bject: Re: ixg(4) performances
To: "Emmanuel Dreyfus"
Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 6:56 PM
[...]
MTU 9000 considered harmful. Use something
that fits in 8K with the headers.
It's a
minor piece of the puzzle but nonetheless, it's a
piece.
Thor
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:44:43 -0500
From: David Young
Finally, adding cfgread/cfgwrite commands to pcictl seems like a step in
the wrong direction. I know that this is UNIX and we're duty-bound to
give everyone enough rope, but may we reconsider our assisted-suicide
policy ju
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 07:03:06PM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> Thor,
>
> The NetBSD TCP stack can't handle 8K payload by page-flipping the payload
> and prepending an mbuf for XDR/NFS/TCP/IP headers? Or is the issue the extra
> page-mapping for the prepended mbuf?
The issue is allocating th
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:17:28PM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Hi
>
> ixgb(4) has poor performances, even on latest -current. Here is the
> dmesg output:
> ixg1 at pci5 dev 0 function 1: Intel(R) PRO/10GbE PCI-Express Network Driver,
> Version - 2.3.10
> ixg1: clearing prefetchable bit
> ixg
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, David Young wrote:
How well has blindly poking configuration registers worked for us in
the past?
Well, with the part he's using (the 82599, I think) it shouldn't be that
blind. The datasheet has all the registers listed, which is the case for
most of Intel's Ethernet cont
> Finally, adding cfgread/cfgwrite commands to pcictl seems like a step in
> the wrong direction. I know that this is UNIX and we're duty-bound to
> give everyone enough rope, but may we reconsider our assisted-suicide
> policy just this one time? :-)
>
> How well has blindly poking configuratio
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:25:52AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2:23pm, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: ixg(4) performances
>
> | On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:57:37PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | >
> ftp://f
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:42:55 +
From: Emmanuel Dreyfus
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:25:52AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I would probably extend pcictl with cfgread and cfgwrite commands.
Sure, once it works I can do that, but a first attempt just
ets EINVAL, any idea wh
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:40:41 +
From: Taylor R Campbell
How about the attached patch? I've been sitting on this for months.
New version with some changes suggested by wiz@.
Index: usr.sbin/pcictl/pcictl.8
===
RCS fil
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:13:50AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I think in the example that was 0xe6. I think the .b means byte access
> (I am guessing).
Yes, I came to that conclusion reading pciutils sources. I discovered
they also had a man page explaining that -)
> I think that we are onl
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:25:52 -0400
From: chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
On Aug 26, 2:23pm, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: ixg(4) performances
| I see has a PCI_IOC_CFGREAD / PCI_IOC_CFGWRITE ioctl,
| does that means Linux's setpci c
On Aug 26, 2:42pm, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: ixg(4) performances
| On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:25:52AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > I would probably extend pcictl with cfgread and cfgwrite commands.
|
| Sure, once it works I can do that, but a first atte
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:25:52AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I would probably extend pcictl with cfgread and cfgwrite commands.
Sure, once it works I can do that, but a first attempt just
ets EINVAL, any idea what can be wrong?
int fd;
struct pciio_bdf_cfgreg pbcr;
On Aug 26, 2:23pm, m...@netbsd.org (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: ixg(4) performances
| On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:57:37PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| >
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-C2_1.20_for_Intel_C2_platform/Intel/LAN/v15.5/PROXGB/DOCS/SERVER/prform10.htm#Setting_MM
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:57:37PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-C2_1.20_for_Intel_C2_platform/Intel/LAN/v15.5/PROXGB/DOCS/SERVER/prform10.htm#Setting_MMRBC
Right, but NetBSD has no tool like Linux's setpci to tweak MMRBC, and if
the BIOS has no setting for it, NetBS
In article <20140826121728.gl23...@homeworld.netbsd.org>,
Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>Hi
>
>ixgb(4) has poor performances, even on latest -current. Here is the
>dmesg output:
>ixg1 at pci5 dev 0 function 1: Intel(R) PRO/10GbE PCI-Express Network
>Driver, Version - 2.3.10
>ixg1: clearing prefetchable
Hi
ixgb(4) has poor performances, even on latest -current. Here is the
dmesg output:
ixg1 at pci5 dev 0 function 1: Intel(R) PRO/10GbE PCI-Express Network Driver,
Version - 2.3.10
ixg1: clearing prefetchable bit
ixg1: interrupting at ioapic0 pin 9
ixg1: PCI Express Bus: Speed 2.5Gb/s Width x8
Th
51 matches
Mail list logo
