From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maowenan Subject: Re: bnx2: rx_fw_discards: BCM5716 sporadically drops packets when update to driver version 2.2.6 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:14:41 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1a94796f-1760-f332-46f0-6ab0b5a0aab7@huawei.com> <090bad42-5ddb-2973-8cb1-bcdd03a05814@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Rahman, Ameen" , To: "Mody, Rasesh" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "f.fainelli@gmail.com" , "andrew@lunn.ch" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <090bad42-5ddb-2973-8cb1-bcdd03a05814@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org @Mody, Rasesh Could you help take a look at this? On 2018/10/30 17:03, maowenan wrote: > > > On 2018/10/30 14:47, Mody, Rasesh wrote: >>> From: maowenan >>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 8:16 PM >>> >>> Hi， >>> >>> After I update version of bnx2 driver from 2.2.1 to 2.2.6, I find BCM5716 >>> sporadically drops packets, which shows in rx_fw_discards. >>> C36-141-5:~ # ethtool -S NIC0 >>> >>> NIC statistics: >>> rx_ucast_packets: 11902 >>> >>> rx_mcast_packets: 217 >>> >>> rx_bcast_packets: 4954320 >>> >>> rx_filtered_packets: 328793 >>> >>> rx_fw_discards: 2742 >>> >>> C36-141-5:~ # >>> >>> 5s later: >>> >>> C36-141-5:~ # ethtool -S NIC0 >>> >>> NIC statistics: >>> rx_ucast_packets: 11910 >>> >>> rx_mcast_packets: 217 >>> >>> rx_bcast_packets: 4958117 >>> >>> rx_filtered_packets: 328897 >>> >>> rx_fw_discards: 2750 >>> >>> C36-141-5:~ # >>> >>> so rx_fw_discards: 2742-----> rx_fw_discards: 2750, lost 8 packets. >>> >>> the information of bnx2 >>> C36-141-5:~ # modinfo bnx2 >>> kernel/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2.ko >>> >>> firmware: bnx2/bnx2-rv2p-09ax-6.0.17.fw >>> >>> firmware: bnx2/bnx2-rv2p-09-6.0.17.fw >>> >>> firmware: bnx2/bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.fw >>> >>> firmware: bnx2/bnx2-rv2p-06-6.0.15.fw >>> >>> firmware: bnx2/bnx2-mips-06-6.2.3.fw >>> version: 2.2.6 >>> >>> >>> 1) Firstly, I check the patches from 2.2.1 to 2.2.6, below patch is interesting. >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id >>> =0021850d0417a4dc38ed871d929b651b87e2ead9 >>> Do not enable filter SORT MODE in chip init routine. This patch addresses an >>> issue where BCM5716 sporadically drops packets when changing multicast list. >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2.c >>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2.c >>> index 8957eb5f4478..8c9a8b7787d2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2.c >>> @@ -4984,8 +4984,6 @@ bnx2_init_chip(struct bnx2 *bp) >>> >>> bp->idle_chk_status_idx = 0xffff; >>> >>> - bp->rx_mode = BNX2_EMAC_RX_MODE_SORT_MODE; >>> - >>> /* Set up how to generate a link change interrupt. */ >>> BNX2_WR(bp, BNX2_EMAC_ATTENTION_ENA, >>> BNX2_EMAC_ATTENTION_ENA_LINK); >>> >>> >>> 2) Secondly, I revert this patch, after verify it, I find rx_fw_discards does not >>> increasing. >>> so I think this patch can fix current issue. But I'm not sure the issue of this >>> patch to fix will be reproduced? >>> I'm not convinced that what factor will trigger rx_fw_discards increasing? >>> And how to fix this? >> >> Can you please reword your point above? i.e. what is working and what is not. I am not sure if I understand it completely. >> >> Is the rx_fw_disacard count incrementing with 2.2.6 upstream driver on BCM5716? What is the kernel version? >> Which test is being run? > > > The case is based on BCM5716's driver version of 2.2.6, and both 3.10 and mainline kernel version exist this issue . > The testing seems like using one port of BCM5716 to receive packets, it can be found rx_fw_disacard increasing occasionally. > There is one patch in 2.2.6, 0021850d0417a4dc38ed871d929b651b87e2ead9, if I remove this patch, I can't reproduce this issue, > rx_fw_disacard doesn't increase. > So I don't know why this patch(0021850d0417a4dc38ed871d929b651b87e2ead9) can fix my problem(rx_fw_disacard increasing)? > If I remove this patch, how to fix the issue that the patch had resolved? > >> >>> >>> Thanks a lot. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > . >