From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Matt Carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid not used Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:50:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20110113205056.GA29254@mcarlson.broadcom.com> References: <20101214191500.GD19951@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <20101215012430.120fd47f@xenia.leun.net> <20101215013431.GA21173@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <20101215081606.18e12fc9@xenia.leun.net> <20110107032459.GA17959@mcarlson.broadcom.com> <20110113012157.GA28147@mcarlson.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Matthew Carlson" , "Michael Leun" , "Michael Chan" , "Eric Dumazet" , "David Miller" , "Ben Greear" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: "Jesse Gross" Return-path: Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:4148 "EHLO MMS3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752022Ab1AMUvO (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:51:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:06:22AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Matt Carlson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 08:36:27PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Matt Carlson wrote: > >> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 07:38:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Michael Leun > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > OK - all tests done on that DL320G5: > >> >> > > >> >> > For completeness, 2.6.37-rc5 unpatched: > >> >> > > >> >> > eth0, no vlan configured: totally broken - see double tagged vlans > >> >> > without tag, single or untagged packets missing at all > >> >> > >> >> Random behavior? ?This one is somewhat hard to explain - maybe there > >> >> are some other factors. ?eth0 has ASF on, so it always strips tags. ?I > >> >> would expect it to behave like the vlan configured case. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > eth0, vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged > >> >> > packets with one vlan tag) > >> >> > >> >> Both ASF and vlan group configured cause tag stripping to be enabled. > >> >> Missing tag. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > eth1 same as originally reported: > >> >> > without vlan configured see vlan tags (single and double tagged as > >> >> > expected) > >> >> > >> >> No ASF and no vlan group means tag stripping is disabled. ?Have tag. > >> >> > >> >> > with vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged > >> >> > packets with one vlan tag) > >> >> > >> >> Configuring vlan group causes stripping to be enabled. ?Missing tag. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2.6.37-rc5, your tg3 use new vlan-code patch: > >> >> > > >> >> > eth0, no vlan configured: ?see packets without vlan tag (see double > >> >> > tagged packets with one vlan tag) > >> >> > >> >> ASF enables tag stripping. ?Missing tag. > >> >> > >> >> > eth1, no vlan configured: see vlan tags (single and double tagged as > >> >> > expected) > >> >> > >> >> No ASF, no vlan group means no stripping. ?Have tag. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > eth0, vlan configured: as without vlan > >> >> > >> >> ASF enables stripping. ?Missing tag. > >> >> > >> >> > eth1, vlan configured: as without vlan > >> >> > >> >> With this patch vlan stripping is only enabled when ASF is on, so no > >> >> stripping. ?Have tag. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 2.6.37-rc5, your tg3 use new vlan-code patch with test patch ontop > >> >> > > >> >> > eth1 no vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged > >> >> > packets with one vlan tag) > >> >> > >> >> With the second patch, vlan stripping is always enabled. ?Missing tag. > >> >> > >> >> > eth1 with vlan: the same > >> >> > >> >> Stripping still always enabled. ?Missing tag. > >> >> > >> >> The bottom line is whenever vlan stripping is enabled we're missing > >> >> the outer tag. ?It might be worth adding some debugging in the area > >> >> before napi_gro_receive/vlan_gro_receive (depending on version). ?My > >> >> guess is that (desc->type_flags & RXD_FLAG_VLAN) is false even for > >> >> vlan packets on this NIC. > >> >> > >> >> You said that everything works on the 5752? ?Matt, is it possible that > >> >> the 5714 either has a problem with vlan stripping or a different way > >> >> of reporting it? > >> > > >> > I don't think this is a 5714 specific issue. ?I think the problem is > >> > rooted in the fact that the VLAN tag stripping is enabled. > >> > >> It's definitely related to vlan stripping being enabled. ?Other cards > >> using tg3 seem to work fine with stripping though, which is why I > >> thought it might be specific to the 5714. > > > > I just tested this on a 5714S, using a net-next-2.6 snapshot obtained > > today. ?It does the right thing in both cases (2nd tg3 patch ommited / > > applied). ?The tag is always visible in the packet stream as seen from > > tcpdump. > > > >> > Your RXD_FLAG_VLAN idea sounds unlikely to me, but it's worth a check. > >> > > >> > The patch here is using __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(), which informs the > >> > stack a VLAN tag is present. ?If this is indeed a reporting problem, I'm > >> > not sure what else the driver should be doing. > >> > >> The code to hand off the tag to the stack looks OK to me. ?Michael was > >> seeing this on older versions of the kernel as well with this NIC, > >> which predates both this patch and the larger vlan changes so it > >> doesn't seem like a problem with passing the tag to the network stack. > >> ?It's hard to know exactly what is going on though without seeing what > >> the hardware is reporting. > > > > When RX_MODE_KEEP_VLAN_TAG is set, the RXD_FLAG_VLAN flag will not be set > > when receiving a packet. ?The driver skips the __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag() > > call. > > > > When RX_MODE_KEEP_VLAN_TAG is unset, the RXD_FLAG_VLAN flag is set, and > > __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag() is called to reinject the packet. > > OK, thanks for testing it out. I'm not sure that there's anything > more we can do without hearing from Michael. In the meantime, I think what we have should go upstream. Just to be absolutely clear though, your position is that VLAN tags should always be stripped?