From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Baptiste Favre Subject: Re: PCI passthrough issue Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:01:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4C06BB.8010907@jbfavre.org> References: <4D47F9CF.2040107@jbfavre.org> <1296566401.13091.171.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D4814CE.5050303@jbfavre.org> <1296569931.13091.194.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D48234F.2020907@jbfavre.org> <4D4828D9.6090601@jbfavre.org> <1296577389.13091.288.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D488355.8010706@jbfavre.org> <1296638873.13091.315.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D4930F3.608@jbfavre.org> <20110202174250.GA8148@dumpdata.com> <4D4BBC15.4080201@jbfavre.org> <1296809586.13091.546.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D4BBEC6.8070809@jbfavre.org> <4D4BD121.2080505@jbfavre.org> <1296817460.13091.646.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D4BE212.1090400@jbfavre.org> <1296818935.13091.648.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4D4BFBE4.6080809@jbfavre.org> <1296827449.13091.670.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Reply-To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1296827449.13091.670.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Le 04/02/2011 14:50, Ian Campbell a =C3=A9crit : > On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 13:15 +0000, Jean Baptiste Favre wrote: >=20 >> >>>> What is a bit strange here is that I don't any more the KERN_CRIT pr= intk >>>> message. >>>> Could be a false positive ? >>> >>> Worth bearing in mind, lets see what the next test run produces. >> Seems that I got this messge only with copybreak=3D0. >> With default value (128), no such message >> >> More, with copybreak=3D0, all packets are dropped (even a ping with >> default packet size is dropped. Same with ping -s1) >=20 > Hang on, I thought you previously said copybreak=3D0 made everything wo= rk > ok. If that isn't definitely the case then we may be following a red > herring. That's something I'm investigating. Under Debian, copybreak=3D0 solve the problem Under OpenWRT, copybreak=3D0 + patch breaks. Will try without patch. > Are you saying that copybreak=3D0 + this patch breaks? That would be ve= ry > surprising since the patch doesn't cause any flow control differences. >=20 > Perhaps there is some difference between your self-built kernels and th= e > Debian kernels you started with? Perhaps you should try the self built > kernel with no patches, just to confirm it behaves the same as the > Debian kernels? Under Debian, I use 2.6.37 from experimental Under OpenWRT, use legacy 2.6.37, build env applies patches for OpenWRT and compile. OpenWRT provides complete build env, as I still have problem compiling Debian 32bits kernel from 64bits env. That's why I switched back to openWRT for testing. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Please gather the tcpdump's too. >> Both tcpdump from GW and domU are Attached. >=20 > Were these collected with or without patches? With or without ethtool -= K > options? With or without copybreak? >=20 > Please try and be explicit about everything you post, there are lots of > variables in the air. OK, sorry. Will redo all tests Regards, JB