* Re: BestComm/FEC Linux system crash
2008-04-15 16:20 ` BestComm/FEC Linux system crash Sylvain Munaut
@ 2008-04-18 12:08 ` Rob Broersen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Rob Broersen @ 2008-04-18 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sylvain Munaut, linuxppc-dev; +Cc: Cees van Teylingen, dve, Nathan Huizinga
Hi Sylvain,
I'm a colleague of Cees at Chess and also working on the FEC crash error
on our MPC5200B based system running Linux kernel 2.6.15. We seem to
have a breakthrough in the process of finding the bug. We've
investigated the fec_rx_interrupt handler, which contains the following
construction:
for (;;) {
sdma_clear_irq(priv->rx_sdma);
if (!sdma_buffer_done(priv->rx_sdma))
{
break;
}
In this construction, the assumption seems to be made that when an
interrupt is pending (indicating a (new) buffer is filled) the status
field in the buffer descriptor table (checked by sdma_buffer_done() ) is
already updated. We've tested this assumption:
- First, when an interrupt is pending, I've implemented a loop polling
for the buffer to become 'done' with no sleep inbetween for a maximum of
100000 times. The result was that often it took a few 100 polls for the
buffer to become done, followed by the polling loop breaking at 100000
loops without the buffer becoming done.
- After that, I put a 1millisecond sleep period in this polling loop. In
this situation, the buffer always was done within 1 millisecond.
Therefore, it seems that there is some latency between the interrupt
being asserted and the status being written, and continuously polling
the status field from the processor seems to (often) have priority over
the bestComm writing it. The assumption above is proven be wrong,
because the situation where the interrupt is pending but the
corresponding buffer is not done, occurs almost every second in our test
system.
Therefore, it is possible for an interrupt to be cleared while the
corresponding buffer is not handled. We implemented a fix for this
situation, to prevent the interrupt from being cleared when the
corresponding buffer is not yet done:
if (!sdma_buffer_done(priv->rx_sdma)) return IRQ_HANDLED;
sdma_clear_irq(priv->rx_sdma);
for (;;) {
if (!sdma_buffer_done(priv->rx_sdma))
{
break;
}
....
With this fix, our systems have been running smoothly for over 16 hours
and counting. The FEC_IEVENT_RFIFO_ERROR hasn't occured anymore. Because
the interrupt isn't cleared but returned immediately in some cases, the
interrupt handler is invoked more often than before, but we don't see a
detremental effect on system performance.
Could you please comment on our findings and our fix? And can you
explain why we see that the interrupt is often received while the status
isn't yet updated? It is not clear to us what is causing the latency
between the update and the interrupt, as it seems to originate from the
same DRD in the BestComm microcode:
0x046acf80, /* DRD1A: *idx3 = *idx0; FN=0 INT init=3 WS=1 RS=1
*/
Thanx for your help!
Regards,
Rob Broersen.
Chess.
Sylvain Munaut schreef:
> Hi
>
>> I hereby take the liberty to contact you regarding an issue we
>> experience with the
>> MPC5200 BestComm/FEC in our system. I found that you are the writer of
>> the drivers
>> for these, so apparently with a lot of experience with these devices.
>> I hope you can find
>> the time and inspiration to look into our case.
>>
> Well, feel free to CC me to bring my attention to it, but such question
> should still go to the list.
> It's been a while since I worked on the 5200 and some other people might
> have more recent expertise than I do.
>
> Plus, it's actually Domen Puncer who reworked a lot of the network
> driver code quite recently ...
>
>
>> We are running a Lunix based system based on a MPC5200
>>
> Need more precision.
> - 5200 or 5200B ?
> - What kernel version (version ?, where did you get it ?, external patch
> applied ?)
>
>
>> This process dies after several minutes due to a FEC RxFifo overflow
>> interrupt. This interrupt
>> now causes the FEC to be re-initialized, but for some reason the
>> receiver channel still does
>> not work properly, causing the RxFifo overflow to occur nearly
>> immediately again, causing
>> a subsequent FEC re-init again, again resulting in failing receiver
>> channel, causing another
>> RxFifo overflow interrupt etc etc etc......
>>
> Huh ... you transmit lots of data ... and it's the RX fifo that overlow ...
>
>
>> In the FEC driver we stumbled upon the following code:
>>
>> static irqreturn_t fec_rx_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>> struct net_device *dev = dev_id;
>> struct fec_priv *priv = (struct fec_priv *)dev->priv;
>>
>> for (;;) {
>> struct sk_buff *skb;
>> struct sk_buff *rskb;
>> struct bcom_fec_bd *bd;
>> u32 status;
>>
>> if (!bcom_buffer_done(priv->rx_dmatsk))
>> break;
>>
>> [...snipped...]
>> Now what we see is that the statement in the FEC interrupt handler
>>
>> if (!bcom_buffer_done(priv->rx_dmatsk))
>> break;
>>
>> is executed frequently.
>>
>> Can you explain why this statement is there?
>>
> Well ... that test is inside an infinite loop ( for(;;) ... ), so yes,
> hopefully it will be 'break' at some point ...
> What we do here is that we try to process as much receive buffer as
> possible ... So we loop indefinitly until no more buffers are ready ...
>
>
>> During debug, after receiving the first RxFifo overflow interrupt, we
>> suspended all further FEC processing and dumped
>> various system status, of which the BestComm receiver descriptors.
>> Here we found that always all but one were initialized
>> to 0x4000005f2, but the different one to 0x08000040.
>>
> Theses are Receive Buffer descriptor. So it the BCOM_BD_READY bit is
> _set_, that means, that they're _not_ done (i.e. they are ready for
> bestcomm to fill).
> If you check the definition of bcom_buffer_done, you'll see that we
> check if the bit is _cleared_
>
> So the situation you are describing is essentially :
> - One of the buffer is filled with some received packet (length = 0x40)
> - All the other buffers are ready for bestcomm and they can contain at
> maximum 1522 bytes (0x5f2)
>
> There is nothing 'wrong' about this situation.
>
>
>> This all directs us somewhat to the believe that the following is
>> occurring:
>>
>> For some reason the BestComm gets confused during FEC reception
>> causing a descriptor not to be handled properly, which
>> causes its status never to be set to 'ready' (BCOM_BD_READY
>> 0x40000000ul). Eventually, because of all receiving
>> traffic to be ceased, the RxFifo will overflow causing the described
>> interrupt and following re-initialization actions. But the
>> BestComm FEC receiver channel fails to re-initialize (or even does not
>> get re-initialized at all) and/or the BestComm FEC
>> receiver descriptor table does not get re-initialized, causing the
>> 0x08000040 status to remain in there. So either BestComm
>> fails to work at all for the FEC Receiver channel and/or BestComm
>> eventually stumbles upon the 'incorrect' descriptor causing
>> the FEC receiver to stall again causing an RxFifo overflow again etc
>> etc etc.
>>
> Well, given you misunderstood the meaning of BCOM_BD_READY, this theory
> doesn't make much sense sorry ...
>
> The re-initialize process should work however ... there is a bug there.
>
>
>> This all seems plausible for what we experience so far, but does get
>> confirmed by any data we can find in datasheets and
>> hard-/software descriptions. The FEC receiver has the highest priority
>> within BestComm and thus should always get serviced.
>> The thing we can not find however is what system impact the PCI DMA by
>> the PLX9056 is causing on the BestComm
>> performance.
>>
> The only interference I see would be contention on the XLB bus ... Maybe
> you can try to play with the xlb priority and give a higher one to
> bestcomm or a lower one to the PCI.
> Look in the platform setup there is some code setting xlb priorities.
> And refer to the 'XLB arbiter' section of the manual for the registers
> to tweak.
>
> What kind of bandwidth are you using for RX/TX on ethernet and PCI ?
> Does your PCI card do _very_ long bursts without releasing the bus
> (locking the xlb for a long time), or _very_ short burst causing big
> overhead ?
>
> You can also try playing the FEC RX fifo alarm levels.
>
>
>> We can imagine that it disrupts 'normal' BestComm performance i.e.
>> Ethernet traffic, but then again the overflow
>> interrupt should take care of a proper re-initialization of all hard-
>> and software, allowing the TCP/IP stack to subsequently
>> handle correct transfer of missing packets.
>>
> The overflow should still not happen ... that's a pretty serious error
> imho.
>
>
> Sylvain
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread