From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid not used Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:34:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1294356887.2704.13.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1291536233.2806.102.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101205105528.49fa9a9f@xenia.leun.net> <20101205114404.7c0cddc2@xenia.leun.net> <20101206203437.54b550e0@xenia.leun.net> <20101206222703.32fbe852@xenia.leun.net> <20101213224510.GB17400@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <20101214191500.GD19951@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <1293901393.2535.49.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1293984348.2535.101.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Matt Carlson , Michael Leun , Michael Chan , David Miller , Ben Greear , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Jesse Gross Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Le jeudi 06 janvier 2011 =C3=A0 16:01 -0500, Jesse Gross a =C3=A9crit : > Hmm, I thought that it might be some interaction with a corner case i= n > the networking core but now it seems less likely. There weren't too > many vlan changes between the working and non-working states. Plus, > since the rx counter isn't increasing, the packets probably aren't > making it anywhere. >=20 > I see that tg3 increases the drop counter in one place, which also > happens to be checking for vlan errors (at tg3.c:4753). That seems > suspicious - maybe the NIC is only partially configured for vlan > offloading. If we can confirm that is where the drop counter is bein= g > incremented and what the error code is maybe it would shed some light= =2E >=20 Hmm... I am pretty sure the drop counter is the dev rx_dropped (core network handled, not tg3 one) incremented at the end of __netif_receive_skb() : We found no suitable handler for packets. atomic_long_inc(&skb->dev->rx_dropped); But thats a guess, I'll have to check > If it's a driver issue I don't have much insight - maybe Matt or > bisect can help. >=20 > >> If it works on bnx2, it would seem to be a driver problem but it w= ould > >> be good to confirm that the tag in skb->vlan_tci is not being > >> delievered to the networking core in this case. > > > > Hmm, where do you want me to check this ? >=20 > I was thinking right before vlan_gro_receive() at tg3.c:4837. If my > theory above is right then this obviously isn't relevant since it > won't be hit at all. Otherwise it would be good to know exactly what > the driver is producing.