Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: R8169: Network lockups in 4.18.{8,9,10} (and 4.19 dev)
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Azat Khuzhin <a3at.mail@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@realtek.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <54d8d7e9-a80d-dc2b-5628-22f9dc14e2ee@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <535f42c7-6c3b-8e5a-49de-5dc975879b21@googlemail.com>
 <98680351-5123-761f-982a-726098da9716@gmail.com>
 <9980dcc1-f7fe-5de7-75be-99b1592c9206@googlemail.com>
 <6b1685ce-22ac-2c71-e1d4-b05748a7d977@googlemail.com>
 <bed5c327-6a2a-99da-8b86-16f897b32548@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <7199b1e4-ce40-60ae-2a6a-ef7e95e563ea@googlemail.com>
 <0e206e6b-3d0c-de27-dedb-48c30e02649c@gmail.com>
 <9d99060a-db1d-7177-3041-e407b131548e@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <0b490a74-c8b3-7206-33ba-d99be73c18fd@googlemail.com>
 <df88dcb6-951d-0568-6104-7346d0c49063@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <d14f04cd-329d-cea9-14e1-d90ad629df74@googlemail.com>
 <6f3f206c-7226-7182-ec81-05547cf39239@maciej.szmigiero.name>
From:   Chris Clayton <chris2553@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <d03ad88e-8ffc-dfa9-fce6-8343a99e37b4@googlemail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:34:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6f3f206c-7226-7182-ec81-05547cf39239@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 11/10/2018 13:23, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 11.10.2018 10:24, Chris Clayton wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 01:12, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>> On 11.10.2018 00:49, Chris Clayton wrote:
>>>>> Now, knowing the "right" value you can experiment with what rtl_init_rxcfg()
>>>>> writes (under the "default:" label for your NIC model).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This might be more interesting. Through a combination of viewing the output from pr_notice() and the output from
>>>> "ethtool -d", I can see RxConfig with the following values
>>>>
>>>> 	During boot:	0x00028700
>>>> 	Before suspend:	0x0002870e
>>>> 	During resume:	0x00024000
>>>> 	Post resume:	0x0002870e
>>>>
>>>> As I did with 4.18.10 early on in the process, I removed the call to rtl_init_rxcfg() from rtl_hw_start() and rebuilt,
>>>> installed and rebooted. Now I see the following values:
>>>>
>>>> 	During boot:	0x00028700
>>>> 	Before suspend:	0x0002870e
>>>> 	During resume:	0x00024000
>>>> 	Post resume:	0x0002400e
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now we can finally see some difference...
>>> Besides missing RX128_INT_EN (bit 15 or 0x8000) and RX_DMA_BURST
>>> (bits 8-10 or 0x700) - that rtl_init_rxcfg() would normally set so this
>>> is kind of expected - one can see that the working configuration
>>> post-resume has bit 14 (or 0x4000) set, too.
>>>
>>> This bit is described in the driver as RX_MULTI_EN ("8111c only") and is
>>> set by rtl_init_rxcfg() for example for RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_35.
>>>
>>> RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_35 is described in the driver as being in the same
>>> family as your RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_38, so can you please try the following
>>> change:
>>> --- r8169.c
>>> +++ r8169.c
>>> @@ -4271,6 +4271,7 @@ static void rtl_init_rxcfg(struct rtl816
>>>  	case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_18 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_24:
>>>  	case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_34:
>>>  	case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_35:
>>> +	case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_38:
>>>  		RTL_W32(tp, RxConfig, RX128_INT_EN | RX_MULTI_EN | RX_DMA_BURST);
>>>  		break;
>>>  	case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_40 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_51:
>>>
>>> This will add RX_MULTI_EN also for your chip model (you need to add back
>>> the call to rtl_init_rxcfg() to rtl_hw_start(), naturally).
>>>
>>
>> That's done the trick. With the above change applied, my network runs running fine after a suspend/resume cycle and the
>> ping times are back in the 14-15ms range.
> 
> Nice!
> 
> I will submit a patch, it would be great if you could test it and then
> add a "Tested-by:" tag.
>  

Will do, Maciej.

Thanks for solving this.
>> Chris
> 
> Maciej
>