Re: [PATCH-2.4] forcedeth update to 0.50

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@kvack.org>]

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:54:38AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:32AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Hi Willy,
> > 
> > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > 
> > >I started from the latest backport you sent in september (0.42) and
> > >incrementally applied 2.6 updates. I stopped at 0.50 which provides
> > >VLAN support, because after this one, there are some 2.4-incompatible
> > >changes (64bit consistent memory allocation for rings, and MSI/MSIX
> > >support).
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > I agree, 2.4 needs a backport. Either a full backport as you did, or a 
> > minimal one-liner fix.
> > Right now, the driver is not usable due to an incorrect initialization.
> > Or to be more accurate:
> >    # modprobe
> >    # ifup
> > works.
> > But
> >    # modprobe
> >    # ifup
> >    # ifdown
> >    # ifup
> > causes a misconfiguration, and the nic hangs hard after a few MB. And 
> > recent distros do the equivalent of ifup/ifdown/ifup somewhere in the 
> > initialization.
> 
> That's what I read in one of the changelogs, but I'm not sure at all that
> it's what happened, because I had the problem after an ifup only. What I
> was doing with this box was pure performance tests which drew me to compare
> the broadcom and nforce performance. My tests measured 3 creteria :
> 
>   - number of HTTP/1.0 hits/s
>   - maximum data rate
>   - maximum packets/s
> 
> on tg3, I got around 45 khits/s, 949 Mbps (TCP, =1.0 Gbps on wire) and
> 1.05 Mpps receive (I want to build a high speed load-balancer and a sniffer).
> This was stable.
> 
> On the nforce, I tried with the hits/s first because it's a good indication
> of hardware-based and driver-based optimizations. It reached 18 khits/s with
> a lot of difficulty and the machine was stuck at 100% of one CPU. But it ran
> for a few minutes like this. Then I tried data rate (which is the same test
> with 1MB objects), and it failed after about 2 seconds and few megabytes (or
> hundreds of megabytes) transferred.
> 
> I had to reboot to get it to work again. And I'm fairly sure that I did not
> do down/up this time as well, but the test came to the same end.
> 
> That's why I'm not sure at all that the one-liner will be enough.
> 
> Moreover, after the update, I reached the same performance as with the
> broadcom, with a slight improvement on packet reception (1.09 Mpps), and
> low CPU usage (15%). So basically, the upgrade rendered the driver from
> barely usable for SSH to very performant.
> 
> > Marcelo: Do you need a one-liner, or could you apply a large backport 
> > patch?
> 
> I would really vote for the full backport, and I can break it into pieces
> if needed (I have them at hand, just have to re-inject the changelogs).
> However, I have separate changes from 0.42 to 0.50, because I started
> with your 0.30-0.42 backport patch.
> 
> I have this machine till the end of the week, so I can perform other tests
> if you're interested in trying specific things.

Since v2.4.33 should be out RSN, my opinion is that applying the one-liner 
to fix the bringup problem for now is more prudent..

Full patch could go into v2.4.34...