From: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@engleder-embedded.com>
To: Avigail Dahan <Avigailx.dahan@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Cc: anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com,
andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, Gerhard Engleder <eg@keba.com>,
Vitaly Lifshits <vitaly.lifshits@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v3] e1000e: Fix real-time violations on link up
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:21:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54d9d905-1cee-4922-8631-c2b69779d18a@engleder-embedded.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cd7d3122-5231-bb7c-cb2c-7b8b94a46968@intel.com>
On 18.12.24 16:08, Avigail Dahan wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/2024 21:16, Gerhard Engleder wrote:
>> From: Gerhard Engleder <eg@keba.com>
>>
>> Link down and up triggers update of MTA table. This update executes many
>> PCIe writes and a final flush. Thus, PCIe will be blocked until all
>> writes are flushed. As a result, DMA transfers of other targets suffer
>> from delay in the range of 50us. This results in timing violations on
>> real-time systems during link down and up of e1000e in combination with
>> an Intel i3-2310E Sandy Bridge CPU.
>>
>> The i3-2310E is quite old. Launched 2011 by Intel but still in use as
>> robot controller. The exact root cause of the problem is unclear and
>> this situation won't change as Intel support for this CPU has ended
>> years ago. Our experience is that the number of posted PCIe writes needs
>> to be limited at least for real-time systems. With posted PCIe writes a
>> much higher throughput can be generated than with PCIe reads which
>> cannot be posted. Thus, the load on the interconnect is much higher.
>> Additionally, a PCIe read waits until all posted PCIe writes are done.
>> Therefore, the PCIe read can block the CPU for much more than 10us if a
>> lot of PCIe writes were posted before. Both issues are the reason why we
>> are limiting the number of posted PCIe writes in row in general for our
>> real-time systems, not only for this driver.
>>
>> A flush after a low enough number of posted PCIe writes eliminates the
>> delay but also increases the time needed for MTA table update. The
>> following measurements were done on i3-2310E with e1000e for 128 MTA
>> table entries:
>>
>> Single flush after all writes: 106us
>> Flush after every write: 429us
>> Flush after every 2nd write: 266us
>> Flush after every 4th write: 180us
>> Flush after every 8th write: 141us
>> Flush after every 16th write: 121us
>>
>> A flush after every 8th write delays the link up by 35us and the
>> negative impact to DMA transfers of other targets is still tolerable.
>>
>> Execute a flush after every 8th write. This prevents overloading the
>> interconnect with posted writes.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
>> CC: Vitaly Lifshits <vitaly.lifshits@intel.com>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/f8fe665a-5e6c-4f95-b47a-2f3281aa0e6c@lunn.ch/T/
>> Signed-off-by: Gerhard Engleder <eg@keba.com>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> - mention problematic platform explicitly (Bjorn Helgaas)
>> - improve comment (Paul Menzel)
>>
>> v2:
>> - remove PREEMPT_RT dependency (Andrew Lunn, Przemek Kitszel)
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
> Tested-by: Avigail Dahan <avigailx.dahan@intel.com>
Thank you for the test!
Gerhard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-18 19:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-14 19:16 [PATCH iwl-next v3] e1000e: Fix real-time violations on link up Gerhard Engleder
2024-12-16 11:16 ` Lifshits, Vitaly
2024-12-16 19:23 ` Gerhard Engleder
2024-12-18 8:36 ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-12-18 19:21 ` Gerhard Engleder
2024-12-18 15:08 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Avigail Dahan
2024-12-18 19:21 ` Gerhard Engleder [this message]
2024-12-18 15:23 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-12-18 19:43 ` Gerhard Engleder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54d9d905-1cee-4922-8631-c2b69779d18a@engleder-embedded.com \
--to=gerhard@engleder-embedded.com \
--cc=Avigailx.dahan@intel.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eg@keba.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
--cc=vitaly.lifshits@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox