Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756584Ab0LOBeu (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:34:50 -0500 Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:1666 "EHLO MMS3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284Ab0LOBer (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:34:47 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: B55A25B1-5D7D-41F8-BC53-C57E7AD3C201 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:34:31 -0800 From: "Matt Carlson" To: "Michael Leun" cc: "Matthew Carlson" , "Jesse Gross" , "Michael Chan" , "Eric Dumazet" , "David Miller" , "Ben Greear" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid not used Message-ID: <20101215013431.GA21173@mcarlson.broadcom.com> References: <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> <20101215012430.120fd47f@xenia.leun.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101215012430.120fd47f@xenia.leun.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-WSS-ID: 6116C4DE0IO2807342-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4440 Lines: 109 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:24:30PM -0800, Michael Leun wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:15:00 -0800 > "Matt Carlson" wrote: > > Michael, I'm wondering if the difference in behavior can be explained > > by the presence or absence of management firmware. Can you look at > > the driver sign-on messages in your syslogs for ASF[]? I'm half > > expecting the 5752 to show "ASF[0]" and the 5714 to show "ASF[1]". > > If you see this, and the below patch doesn't fix the problem, let me > > know. I have another test I'd like you to run. > > Do I understand this correct? "Management firmware" or ASF is some > feature, vendor decides to built into network card (firmware) or not? Right. > If so, would'nt one expect two oneboard network cards in one server > to look alike? Mostly, yes. Except for..... > HP Proliant DL320G5 > > <6>tg3.c:v3.113 (August 2, 2010) > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(N/A) rev 9003] (PCIX:133MHz:64-bit) MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: attached PHY is 5714 (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1]) > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[1] TSOcap[1] This => ^^^^^^ > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.0: eth0: dma_rwctrl[76148000] dma_mask[64-bit] > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: PCI INT B -> GSI 17 (level, low) -> IRQ 17 > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: Tigon3 [partno(N/A) rev 9003] (PCIX:133MHz:64-bit) MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: attached PHY is 5714 (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1]) > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] TSOcap[1] And this => ^^^^^^ > <6>tg3 0000:03:04.1: eth1: dma_rwctrl[76148000] dma_mask[64-bit] So management firmware is turned off on the second port. > Lenovo ThinkPad z61m > > [ 2.679130] tg3.c:v3.113 (August 2, 2010) > [ 2.679176] tg3 0000:02:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > [ 2.679188] tg3 0000:02:00.0: setting latency timer to 64 > [ 2.728572] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95752m) rev 6002] (PCI Express) MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx > [ 2.728577] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: attached PHY is 5752 (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1]) > [ 2.728581] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] TSOcap[1] ^^^^^^ And it isn't present on the 5752. > [ 2.728585] tg3 0000:02:00.0: eth0: dma_rwctrl[76180000] > dma_mask[64-bit] > > > > ---- > > > > [PATCH] tg3: Use new VLAN code > > Unfortunately had'nt time to try much now, but with 2.6.37-rc5 / your > patch on the DL320, single user mode (nothing configured on eth) just > after ifconfig eth0/eth1 up I see NO vlan tags on eth0 but I see vlan > tags on eth1, so there clearly is a difference. > > I should have checked if I still see vlan tags on eth1 if I configure > some vlan there - if helpful maybe I can do this (have to look, when I > can effort another downtime). This would be helpful, just to solidify our findings. > I wonder, if the difference in that both onboard cards is really there > or if there is some malfunction in detecion? Please run the above test first, but afterwards, can you apply the below patch on top of your current sources. I suspect eth1 will begin to act like eth0. This patch is just a test. [PATCH] tg3: Always strip VLAN tags This patch configures the hardware to always strip VLAN tags from incoming packets. --- drivers/net/tg3.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/tg3.c b/drivers/net/tg3.c index 3682205..964293f 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tg3.c +++ b/drivers/net/tg3.c @@ -9505,8 +9505,10 @@ static void __tg3_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *dev) /* When ASF is in use, we always keep the RX_MODE_KEEP_VLAN_TAG * flag clear. */ +#if 0 if (!(tp->tg3_flags & TG3_FLAG_ENABLE_ASF)) rx_mode |= RX_MODE_KEEP_VLAN_TAG; +#endif if (dev->flags & IFF_PROMISC) { /* Promiscuous mode. */ -- 1.7.2.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/