* 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang @ 2012-11-08 6:24 Joe Jin 2012-11-08 20:35 ` Dave, Tushar N 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-08 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: e1000-devel; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath Hi list, IHAC reported "82571EB Detected Hardware Unit Hang" on HP ProLiant DL360 G6, and have to reboot the server to recover: e1000e 0000:06:00.1: eth3: Detected Hardware Unit Hang: TDH <1a> TDT <1a> next_to_use <1a> next_to_clean <18> buffer_info[next_to_clean]: time_stamp <10047a74e> next_to_watch <18> jiffies <10047a88c> next_to_watch.status <1> MAC Status <80383> PHY Status <792d> PHY 1000BASE-T Status <3800> PHY Extended Status <3000> PCI Status <10> With newer kernel 2.0.0.1 the issue still reproducible. Device info: 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) (rev 06) 06:00.1 0200: 8086:10bc (rev 06) I compared lspci output before and after the issue, different as below: 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) (rev 06) Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company NC364T PCI Express Quad Port Gigabit Server Adapter Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx- - Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx- + Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx+ Would you please help to it? Thanks in advance, Joe -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Joe Jin | Software Development Senior Manager | +8610.6106.5624 ORACLE | Linux and Virtualization No. 24 Zhongguancun Software Park, Haidian District | 100193 Beijing ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-08 6:24 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang Joe Jin @ 2012-11-08 20:35 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-09 1:22 ` Joe Jin ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-08 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin, e1000-devel; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath >-----Original Message----- >From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org] >On Behalf Of Joe Jin >Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:25 PM >To: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net >Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >Subject: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > >Hi list, > >IHAC reported "82571EB Detected Hardware Unit Hang" on HP ProLiant DL360 >G6, and have to reboot the server to recover: > >e1000e 0000:06:00.1: eth3: Detected Hardware Unit Hang: > TDH <1a> > TDT <1a> > next_to_use <1a> > next_to_clean <18> >buffer_info[next_to_clean]: > time_stamp <10047a74e> > next_to_watch <18> > jiffies <10047a88c> > next_to_watch.status <1> >MAC Status <80383> >PHY Status <792d> >PHY 1000BASE-T Status <3800> >PHY Extended Status <3000> >PCI Status <10> > >With newer kernel 2.0.0.1 the issue still reproducible. > >Device info: >06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet >Controller (Copper) (rev 06) >06:00.1 0200: 8086:10bc (rev 06) > >I compared lspci output before and after the issue, different as below: > 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet >Controller (Copper) (rev 06) > Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company NC364T PCI Express Quad Port >Gigabit Server Adapter > Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ >Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx- >- Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- ><TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx- >+ Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- >+<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx+ Are you sure this is not similar issue as before that you reported. i.e. On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:51 +0800, Joe Jin wrote: > I'm seeing a Unit Hang even with the latest e1000e driver 2.0.0 when > doing scp test. this issue is easy do reproduced on SUN FIRE X2270 M2, > just copy a big file (>500M) from another server will hit it at once. All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max payload size otherwise it can cause hang. Can you double check this? -Tushar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-08 20:35 ` Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-09 1:22 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 2:47 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 3:37 ` Li Yu 2 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-09 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/09/12 04:35, Dave, Tushar N wrote: > Are you sure this is not similar issue as before that you reported. > i.e. Tushar, Thanks for your quick response, I'll check with customer if they can modify the Max payload size from BIOS, this time issue hit on HP's server. Thanks again, Joe > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:51 +0800, Joe Jin wrote: >> > I'm seeing a Unit Hang even with the latest e1000e driver 2.0.0 when >> > doing scp test. this issue is easy do reproduced on SUN FIRE X2270 M2, >> > just copy a big file (>500M) from another server will hit it at once. > All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max payload size otherwise it can cause hang. > Can you double check this? > -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Joe Jin | Software Development Senior Manager | +8610.6106.5624 ORACLE | Linux and Virtualization No. 24 Zhongguancun Software Park, Haidian District | 100193 Beijing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-08 20:35 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-09 1:22 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-14 2:47 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 3:45 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-14 3:37 ` Li Yu 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-14 2:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/09/12 04:35, Dave, Tushar N wrote: > All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max payload size otherwise it can cause hang. > Can you double check this? Hi Tushar, Checked with hardware vendor and they said no way to modify the max payload size from BIOS, can I modify it from driver side? Thanks, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-14 2:47 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-14 3:45 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-15 0:32 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-14 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:48 PM >To: Dave, Tushar N >Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >Subject: Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > >On 11/09/12 04:35, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >> All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max >payload size otherwise it can cause hang. >> Can you double check this? > >Hi Tushar, > >Checked with hardware vendor and they said no way to modify the max >payload size from BIOS, can I modify it from driver side? If you want to change value for 82571 device you can do it from eeprom but for other upstream devices I am not sure. I will check with my team. -Tushar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-14 3:45 ` Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-15 0:32 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-15 20:26 ` Dave, Tushar N 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-15 0:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/14/12 11:45, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:48 PM >> To: Dave, Tushar N >> Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >> Subject: Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >> >> On 11/09/12 04:35, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >>> All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max >> payload size otherwise it can cause hang. >>> Can you double check this? >> >> Hi Tushar, >> >> Checked with hardware vendor and they said no way to modify the max >> payload size from BIOS, can I modify it from driver side? > > If you want to change value for 82571 device you can do it from eeprom but for other upstream devices I am not sure. I will check with my team. Hi Tushar, Would you please help to fine the offset of max payload size in eeprom? I'd like to have a try to modify it by ethtool. Thanks in advance, Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-15 0:32 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-15 20:26 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-19 5:38 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-15 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:33 PM >To: Dave, Tushar N >Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >Subject: Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > >On 11/14/12 11:45, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:48 PM >>> To: Dave, Tushar N >>> Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >>> kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >>> Subject: Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >>> >>> On 11/09/12 04:35, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >>>> All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* >>>> max >>> payload size otherwise it can cause hang. >>>> Can you double check this? >>> >>> Hi Tushar, >>> >>> Checked with hardware vendor and they said no way to modify the max >>> payload size from BIOS, can I modify it from driver side? >> >> If you want to change value for 82571 device you can do it from eeprom >but for other upstream devices I am not sure. I will check with my team. > >Hi Tushar, > >Would you please help to fine the offset of max payload size in eeprom? >I'd like to have a try to modify it by ethtool. It is defined using bit 8 of word 0x1A. Bit value 0 = 128B , bit value 1 = 256B -Tushar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-15 20:26 ` Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-19 5:38 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-20 8:59 ` Dave, Tushar N 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-19 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/16/12 04:26, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >> Would you please help to fine the offset of max payload size in eeprom? >> I'd like to have a try to modify it by ethtool. > > It is defined using bit 8 of word 0x1A. > Bit value 0 = 128B , bit value 1 = 256B Hi Tushar, I checked one of my server which Max Payload Size is 128: # lspci -vvv -s 52:00.1 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) Subsystem: Intel Corporation PRO/1000 PT Quad Port Server Adapter Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx+ Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx- Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes Interrupt: pin B routed to IRQ 266 Region 0: Memory at dfea0000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] Region 1: Memory at dfe80000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=128K] Region 2: I/O ports at 6020 [size=32] [virtual] Expansion ROM at d8120000 [disabled] [size=128K] Capabilities: [c8] Power Management version 2 Flags: PMEClk- DSI+ D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0+,D1-,D2-,D3hot+,D3cold-) Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=1 PME- Capabilities: [d0] MSI: Enable+ Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+ Address: 00000000fee00000 Data: 409a Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr+ UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend- LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L0s, Latency L0 <4us, L1 <64us ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- CommClk+ ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- Capabilities: [100 v1] Advanced Error Reporting UESta: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol- UEMsk: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol- UESvrt: DLP+ SDES- TLP+ FCP+ CmpltTO+ CmpltAbrt+ UnxCmplt+ RxOF+ MalfTLP+ ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol- CESta: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- NonFatalErr- CEMsk: RxErr+ BadTLP+ BadDLLP+ Rollover+ Timeout+ NonFatalErr- AERCap: First Error Pointer: 14, GenCap- CGenEn- ChkCap- ChkEn- Capabilities: [140 v1] Device Serial Number 00-15-17-ff-ff-16-ed-86 Kernel driver in use: e1000e Kernel modules: e1000e And eeprom dump as below: Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ed 86 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0060 00 01 00 40 1e 12 07 40 00 01 00 40 ff ff ff ff If I did not misunderstand, the value of offset 0x1a is 0x07a6, then the bit 8 is 1, but my NIC's MPS is 128b, anything I'm wrong? Thanks, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-19 5:38 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-20 8:59 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-20 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:38 PM >To: Dave, Tushar N >Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >Subject: Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > >On 11/16/12 04:26, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >>> Would you please help to fine the offset of max payload size in eeprom? >>> I'd like to have a try to modify it by ethtool. >> >> It is defined using bit 8 of word 0x1A. >> Bit value 0 = 128B , bit value 1 = 256B > >Hi Tushar, > >I checked one of my server which Max Payload Size is 128: > ># lspci -vvv -s 52:00.1 >52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet >Controller (rev 06) > Subsystem: Intel Corporation PRO/1000 PT Quad Port Server Adapter > Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- >ParErr+ Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx+ > Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- ><TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx- > Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes > Interrupt: pin B routed to IRQ 266 > Region 0: Memory at dfea0000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) >[size=128K] > Region 1: Memory at dfe80000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) >[size=128K] > Region 2: I/O ports at 6020 [size=32] > [virtual] Expansion ROM at d8120000 [disabled] [size=128K] > Capabilities: [c8] Power Management version 2 > Flags: PMEClk- DSI+ D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0+,D1-,D2- >,D3hot+,D3cold-) > Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=1 PME- > Capabilities: [d0] MSI: Enable+ Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+ > Address: 00000000fee00000 Data: 409a > Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 > DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s ><512ns, L1 <64us > ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- > DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ >Unsupported+ > RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ > MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes > DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr+ UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- >TransPend- > LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L0s, >Latency L0 <4us, L1 <64us > ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- > LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- >CommClk+ > ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- > LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ >DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- > Capabilities: [100 v1] Advanced Error Reporting > UESta: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- >RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol- > UEMsk: DLP- SDES- TLP- FCP- CmpltTO- CmpltAbrt- UnxCmplt- >RxOF- MalfTLP- ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol- > UESvrt: DLP+ SDES- TLP+ FCP+ CmpltTO+ CmpltAbrt+ UnxCmplt+ >RxOF+ MalfTLP+ ECRC- UnsupReq+ ACSViol- > CESta: RxErr- BadTLP- BadDLLP- Rollover- Timeout- >NonFatalErr- > CEMsk: RxErr+ BadTLP+ BadDLLP+ Rollover+ Timeout+ >NonFatalErr- > AERCap: First Error Pointer: 14, GenCap- CGenEn- ChkCap- >ChkEn- > Capabilities: [140 v1] Device Serial Number 00-15-17-ff-ff-16-ed- >86 > Kernel driver in use: e1000e > Kernel modules: e1000e > >And eeprom dump as below: > >Offset Values >------ ------ >0x0000 00 15 17 16 ed 86 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff >0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 >0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 >0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 >0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 >0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >0x0060 00 01 00 40 1e 12 07 40 00 01 00 40 ff ff ff ff > > >If I did not misunderstand, the value of offset 0x1a is 0x07a6, then the >bit 8 is 1, but my NIC's MPS is 128b, anything I'm wrong? Have you power off the system completely after modifying eeprom? If not please do so. -Tushar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-20 8:59 ` Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-26 16:23 ` [E1000-devel] " Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-20 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/20/12 16:59, Dave, Tushar N wrote: > Have you power off the system completely after modifying eeprom? If not please do so. seems not works for me, would you please help to check what is wrong of my operations? Original eeprom dump: # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^ 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) <--snip--> Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <--snip--> # ethtool eth3 Settings for eth3: Supported ports: [ TP ] Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Supports auto-negotiation: Yes Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Advertised pause frame use: No Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Twisted Pair PHYAD: 1 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: on MDI-X: off Supports Wake-on: d Wake-on: d Current message level: 0x00000007 (7) Link detected: yes # ethtool -E eth3 magic 0x10a48086 offset 0x34 value 0xa7 # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a7 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^ <== a6 --> a7 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # reboot # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a7 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) <--snip--> Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr+ UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend- LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L0s, Latency L0 <4us, L1 <64us ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- CommClk+ ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- <--snip--> # ethtool -E eth3 magic 0x10a48086 offset 0x35 value 0x17 # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 17 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^<== 07 -> 17 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # reboot # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 17 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^<== 07 -> 17 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) <--snip--> Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr+ UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend- LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L0s, Latency L0 <4us, L1 <64us ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- CommClk+ ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- <--snip--> Thanks, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-26 16:23 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-27 0:59 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-26 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin, Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Joe Jin wrote: > On 11/20/12 16:59, Dave, Tushar N wrote: >> Have you power off the system completely after modifying eeprom? If not please do so. > > Hi Tushar, > > Seems not works for me, would you please help to check what is wrong of my operations? ... > # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv > 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) > <--snip--> > Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 > DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- > DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ > RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ > MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > <--snip--> If you look at the previous section, DevCap, you'll see that it's correctly advertising 256 bytes but the system is negotiating 128 for the link to the Ethernet controller. Things on the "other" side of the link are controlled outside of the e1000 driver. Tushar's first suggestion was to check the PCIe payload settings in the entire chain. Have you done that? Mismatches will cause hangs. Todd Fujinaka Technical Marketing Engineer LAN Access Division (LAD) Intel Corporation todd.fujinaka@intel.com (503) 712-4565 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-26 16:23 ` [E1000-devel] " Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-27 0:59 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-27 2:06 ` Mary Mcgrath 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-27 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fujinaka, Todd Cc: Dave, Tushar N, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/27/12 00:23, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > If you look at the previous section, DevCap, you'll see that it's > correctly advertising 256 bytes but the system is negotiating 128 for > the link to the Ethernet controller. Things on the "other" side of the > link are controlled outside of the e1000 driver. > > Tushar's first suggestion was to check the PCIe payload settings in the > entire chain. Have you done that? Mismatches will cause hangs. Hi Todd, So far I had to know how to modify the maxpayload size, since BIOS have not entry to change this, so I had to use ethtool, now I need to get the offset of MaxPayload size in eeprom, I ever tried to find from Intel online document but failed, any idea? Thanks in advance, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-27 0:59 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-27 2:06 ` Mary Mcgrath 2012-11-27 17:32 ` [E1000-devel] " Fujinaka, Todd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Mary Mcgrath @ 2012-11-27 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin; +Cc: netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel Joe Thank you for working this. I would love to find out how they expect a customer to make the modification To "word 0x1A, and see if the 8th bit is 0 or 1, and to change to 0." I have in turn asked the ct for the lspci command on eth3, maybe the incorrect setting is upstream. Again, thank you. Regards Mary -----Original Message----- From: Joe Jin Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:00 PM To: Fujinaka, Todd Cc: Dave, Tushar N; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang On 11/27/12 00:23, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > If you look at the previous section, DevCap, you'll see that it's > correctly advertising 256 bytes but the system is negotiating 128 for > the link to the Ethernet controller. Things on the "other" side of the > link are controlled outside of the e1000 driver. > > Tushar's first suggestion was to check the PCIe payload settings in > the entire chain. Have you done that? Mismatches will cause hangs. Hi Todd, So far I had to know how to modify the maxpayload size, since BIOS have not entry to change this, so I had to use ethtool, now I need to get the offset of MaxPayload size in eeprom, I ever tried to find from Intel online document but failed, any idea? Thanks in advance, Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-27 2:06 ` Mary Mcgrath @ 2012-11-27 17:32 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-27 18:10 ` Ben Hutchings 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-27 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mary Mcgrath, Joe Jin; +Cc: netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has been mentioned in the past. We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the upstream bridge (not us). You also need to check all the PCIe links to get to the device. There can be several to get from the root complex, through bridges, to the endpoint Ethernet controller. The Ethernet part and driver has no control over any other links. You'll have to talk to the motherboard manufacturer about those links. Your original problem appears to be hangs and Tushar asked you to the entire path of PCIe connections from the root complex to the endpoint. Any mismatches in payload can cause hangs and I believe you have had the problem in the past. I'm sure you remember all the lspci commands to list the tree view and to dump all the details from each of the links and I would suggest you do that to check to see that the payload sizes match. What I do is "lspci -tvvv" to see what's connected, then "lspci -s xx:xx.x -vvv" to check the devices on the link. Thanks. Todd Fujinaka Technical Marketing Engineer LAN Access Division (LAD) Intel Corporation todd.fujinaka@intel.com (503) 712-4565 -----Original Message----- From: Mary Mcgrath [mailto:mary.mcgrath@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 6:07 PM To: Joe Jin Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang Joe Thank you for working this. I would love to find out how they expect a customer to make the modification To "word 0x1A, and see if the 8th bit is 0 or 1, and to change to 0." I have in turn asked the ct for the lspci command on eth3, maybe the incorrect setting is upstream. Again, thank you. Regards Mary -----Original Message----- From: Joe Jin Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:00 PM To: Fujinaka, Todd Cc: Dave, Tushar N; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang On 11/27/12 00:23, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > If you look at the previous section, DevCap, you'll see that it's > correctly advertising 256 bytes but the system is negotiating 128 for > the link to the Ethernet controller. Things on the "other" side of the > link are controlled outside of the e1000 driver. > > Tushar's first suggestion was to check the PCIe payload settings in > the entire chain. Have you done that? Mismatches will cause hangs. Hi Todd, So far I had to know how to modify the maxpayload size, since BIOS have not entry to change this, so I had to use ethtool, now I need to get the offset of MaxPayload size in eeprom, I ever tried to find from Intel online document but failed, any idea? Thanks in advance, Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-27 17:32 ` [E1000-devel] " Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-27 18:10 ` Ben Hutchings 2012-11-27 18:24 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-28 8:31 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Ben Hutchings @ 2012-11-27 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fujinaka, Todd, Mary Mcgrath Cc: Joe Jin, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has > been mentioned in the past. > > We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change the > advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is > negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. The > driver should not change the size of the link as it would be poking at > registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the upstream > bridge (not us). [...] MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can use the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several others) to set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow setting MPS above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). (These parameters are not documented in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt! Someone ought to fix that.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-27 18:10 ` Ben Hutchings @ 2012-11-27 18:24 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-28 8:31 ` Joe Jin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-27 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Hutchings, Mary Mcgrath Cc: Joe Jin, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci Thanks for the clarification. I was just going by the PCIe spec, which says the lowest value of both ends is used, and I figured SOMETHING had to be looking at that and doing some sort of negotiation. I'm no BIOS guy, so I'm not sure what's actually going on, whether something walks the PCIe tree or if the BIOS just sets all the values to the minimum. Todd Fujinaka Technical Marketing Engineer LAN Access Division (LAD) Intel Corporation todd.fujinaka@intel.com (503) 712-4565 -----Original Message----- From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@solarflare.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:11 AM To: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath Cc: Joe Jin; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci Subject: RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has > been mentioned in the past. > > We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change the > advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is > negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. The > driver should not change the size of the link as it would be poking at > registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the upstream > bridge (not us). [...] MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can use the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several others) to set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow setting MPS above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). (These parameters are not documented in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt! Someone ought to fix that.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-27 18:10 ` Ben Hutchings 2012-11-27 18:24 ` Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-28 8:31 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-28 15:53 ` Fujinaka, Todd 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-28 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Fujinaka, Todd, Mary Mcgrath, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >> been mentioned in the past. >> >> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change the >> advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. The >> driver should not change the size of the link as it would be poking at >> registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the upstream >> bridge (not us). > [...] > > MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is programmed > by the system firmware (at least for devices present at boot - the > kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can use the kernel > parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several others) to set a policy > that overrides this, but no policy will allow setting MPS above the > device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). > Ben, Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. Thanks in advance, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-28 8:31 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-28 15:53 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-29 3:10 ` Ethan Zhao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-28 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin, Ben Hutchings Cc: Mary Mcgrath, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci The only EEPROM I know about or can speak to is the one attached to the 82571 and it doesn't set the MaxPayloadSize. That's done by the BIOS. Todd Fujinaka Technical Marketing Engineer LAN Access Division (LAD) Intel Corporation todd.fujinaka@intel.com (503) 712-4565 -----Original Message----- From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:31 AM To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >> been mentioned in the past. >> >> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change >> the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. >> The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be >> poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the >> upstream bridge (not us). > [...] > > MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is > programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at > boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can use > the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several others) to > set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow setting MPS > above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). > Ben, Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. Thanks in advance, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-28 15:53 ` Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-29 3:10 ` Ethan Zhao 2012-11-29 15:52 ` Fujinaka, Todd 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Ethan Zhao @ 2012-11-29 3:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fujinaka, Todd Cc: Joe Jin, Ben Hutchings, Mary Mcgrath, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci Joe, Possibly your customer is running a kernel without source code on a platform whose vendor wouldn't like to fix BIOS issue( Is that a HP/Dell server ?). Anyway, to see if is a payload issue or, you could change the payload size with setpci tool to those devices and set the link retrain bit to trigger the link retraining to debug the issue and identity the root cause. I thinks it is much easier than modify the BIOS or eeprom of NIC. e.g. set device control register to 0f 00 (128 bytes payload size) # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 98.w=000f set device link control register to 60h (retrain the link) # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 a0.b=60 Hope it works, Just my 2 cents. Ethan.zhao@oracle.com On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Fujinaka, Todd <todd.fujinaka@intel.com> wrote: > The only EEPROM I know about or can speak to is the one attached to the 82571 and it doesn't set the MaxPayloadSize. That's done by the BIOS. > > Todd Fujinaka > Technical Marketing Engineer > LAN Access Division (LAD) > Intel Corporation > todd.fujinaka@intel.com > (503) 712-4565 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:31 AM > To: Ben Hutchings > Cc: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > > On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >>> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >>> been mentioned in the past. >>> >>> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change >>> the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >>> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. >>> The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be >>> poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the >>> upstream bridge (not us). >> [...] >> >> MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is >> programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at >> boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can use >> the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several others) to >> set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow setting MPS >> above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). >> > > Ben, > > Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. > So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. > > > Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. > > Thanks in advance, > Joe > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-29 3:10 ` Ethan Zhao @ 2012-11-29 15:52 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-12-19 3:04 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-11-29 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ethan Zhao Cc: Joe Jin, Ben Hutchings, Mary Mcgrath, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci Someone else pointed this out to me locally. If you have a non-client BIOS, you should be able to set the MaxPayloadSize using setpci. You have to make sure that you're being consistent throughout all the associated links. Todd Fujinaka Technical Marketing Engineer LAN Access Division (LAD) Intel Corporation todd.fujinaka@intel.com (503) 712-4565 -----Original Message----- From: Ethan Zhao [mailto:ethan.kernel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:10 PM To: Fujinaka, Todd Cc: Joe Jin; Ben Hutchings; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang Joe, Possibly your customer is running a kernel without source code on a platform whose vendor wouldn't like to fix BIOS issue( Is that a HP/Dell server ?). Anyway, to see if is a payload issue or, you could change the payload size with setpci tool to those devices and set the link retrain bit to trigger the link retraining to debug the issue and identity the root cause. I thinks it is much easier than modify the BIOS or eeprom of NIC. e.g. set device control register to 0f 00 (128 bytes payload size) # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 98.w=000f set device link control register to 60h (retrain the link) # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 a0.b=60 Hope it works, Just my 2 cents. Ethan.zhao@oracle.com On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Fujinaka, Todd <todd.fujinaka@intel.com> wrote: > The only EEPROM I know about or can speak to is the one attached to the 82571 and it doesn't set the MaxPayloadSize. That's done by the BIOS. > > Todd Fujinaka > Technical Marketing Engineer > LAN Access Division (LAD) > Intel Corporation > todd.fujinaka@intel.com > (503) 712-4565 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:31 AM > To: Ben Hutchings > Cc: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > > On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >>> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >>> been mentioned in the past. >>> >>> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change >>> the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >>> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. >>> The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be >>> poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the >>> upstream bridge (not us). >> [...] >> >> MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is >> programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at >> boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can >> use the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several >> others) to set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow >> setting MPS above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). >> > > Ben, > > Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. > So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. > > > Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. > > Thanks in advance, > Joe > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-29 15:52 ` Fujinaka, Todd @ 2012-12-19 3:04 ` Joe Jin 2012-12-19 5:52 ` Yijing Wang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-12-19 3:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fujinaka, Todd Cc: Ethan Zhao, Ben Hutchings, Mary Mcgrath, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci Hi all, I backported mps commits and ask customer pass "pci=pcie_bus_peer2pee" to kernel to limited MPS to 128 and issue disappeared, sound like this is a BIOS bug. Thanks all of your help. Best Regards, Joe On 11/29/12 23:52, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: > Someone else pointed this out to me locally. If you have a non-client BIOS, you should be able to set the MaxPayloadSize using setpci. You have to make sure that you're being consistent throughout all the associated links. > > Todd Fujinaka > Technical Marketing Engineer > LAN Access Division (LAD) > Intel Corporation > todd.fujinaka@intel.com > (503) 712-4565 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ethan Zhao [mailto:ethan.kernel@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:10 PM > To: Fujinaka, Todd > Cc: Joe Jin; Ben Hutchings; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > > Joe, > Possibly your customer is running a kernel without source code on a platform whose vendor wouldn't like to fix BIOS issue( Is that a HP/Dell server ?). > Anyway, to see if is a payload issue or, you could change the payload size with setpci tool to those devices and set the link retrain bit to trigger the link retraining to debug the issue and identity the root cause. I thinks it is much easier than modify the BIOS or eeprom of NIC. > > e.g. > set device control register to 0f 00 (128 bytes payload size) > # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 98.w=000f > set device link control register to 60h (retrain the link) > # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 a0.b=60 > > Hope it works, Just my 2 cents. > > Ethan.zhao@oracle.com > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Fujinaka, Todd <todd.fujinaka@intel.com> wrote: >> The only EEPROM I know about or can speak to is the one attached to the 82571 and it doesn't set the MaxPayloadSize. That's done by the BIOS. >> >> Todd Fujinaka >> Technical Marketing Engineer >> LAN Access Division (LAD) >> Intel Corporation >> todd.fujinaka@intel.com >> (503) 712-4565 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:31 AM >> To: Ben Hutchings >> Cc: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; >> e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci >> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >> >> On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >>>> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >>>> been mentioned in the past. >>>> >>>> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change >>>> the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >>>> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. >>>> The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be >>>> poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the >>>> upstream bridge (not us). >>> [...] >>> >>> MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is >>> programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at >>> boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can >>> use the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several >>> others) to set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow >>> setting MPS above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). >>> >> >> Ben, >> >> Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. >> So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. >> >> >> Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Joe >> -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Joe Jin | Software Development Senior Manager | +8610.6106.5624 ORACLE | Linux and Virtualization No. 24 Zhongguancun Software Park, Haidian District | 100193 Beijing ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-12-19 3:04 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-12-19 5:52 ` Yijing Wang 2012-12-19 6:13 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Yijing Wang @ 2012-12-19 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Jin Cc: Fujinaka, Todd, Ethan Zhao, Ben Hutchings, Mary Mcgrath, netdev, e1000-devel, linux-kernel, linux-pci, Jon Mason, Bjorn Helgaas On 2012/12/19 11:04, Joe Jin wrote: > Hi all, > > I backported mps commits and ask customer pass "pci=pcie_bus_peer2pee" to kernel > to limited MPS to 128 and issue disappeared, sound like this is a BIOS bug. > Hi Joe, I found similar problem when I do pci hotplug, discussion is here:http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=134810569924220&w=2. We try to improve Linux kernel to debug this problem easily based Bjorn's suggestion. Jon sent out the first version patch http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=135002016005274&w=2. I think we can do further here, http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=135115581307869&w=2. I hope this information can help you. Thanks! Yijing. > Thanks all of your help. > > Best Regards, > Joe > > On 11/29/12 23:52, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >> Someone else pointed this out to me locally. If you have a non-client BIOS, you should be able to set the MaxPayloadSize using setpci. You have to make sure that you're being consistent throughout all the associated links. >> >> Todd Fujinaka >> Technical Marketing Engineer >> LAN Access Division (LAD) >> Intel Corporation >> todd.fujinaka@intel.com >> (503) 712-4565 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ethan Zhao [mailto:ethan.kernel@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:10 PM >> To: Fujinaka, Todd >> Cc: Joe Jin; Ben Hutchings; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci >> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >> >> Joe, >> Possibly your customer is running a kernel without source code on a platform whose vendor wouldn't like to fix BIOS issue( Is that a HP/Dell server ?). >> Anyway, to see if is a payload issue or, you could change the payload size with setpci tool to those devices and set the link retrain bit to trigger the link retraining to debug the issue and identity the root cause. I thinks it is much easier than modify the BIOS or eeprom of NIC. >> >> e.g. >> set device control register to 0f 00 (128 bytes payload size) >> # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 98.w=000f >> set device link control register to 60h (retrain the link) >> # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 a0.b=60 >> >> Hope it works, Just my 2 cents. >> >> Ethan.zhao@oracle.com >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Fujinaka, Todd <todd.fujinaka@intel.com> wrote: >>> The only EEPROM I know about or can speak to is the one attached to the 82571 and it doesn't set the MaxPayloadSize. That's done by the BIOS. >>> >>> Todd Fujinaka >>> Technical Marketing Engineer >>> LAN Access Division (LAD) >>> Intel Corporation >>> todd.fujinaka@intel.com >>> (503) 712-4565 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:31 AM >>> To: Ben Hutchings >>> Cc: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; >>> e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci >>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >>> >>> On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >>>>> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >>>>> been mentioned in the past. >>>>> >>>>> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change >>>>> the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >>>>> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. >>>>> The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be >>>>> poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the >>>>> upstream bridge (not us). >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is >>>> programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at >>>> boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can >>>> use the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several >>>> others) to set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow >>>> setting MPS above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). >>>> >>> >>> Ben, >>> >>> Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. >>> So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. >>> >>> >>> Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> Joe >>> > > -- Thanks! Yijing ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-12-19 5:52 ` Yijing Wang @ 2012-12-19 6:13 ` Joe Jin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-12-19 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yijing Wang Cc: netdev, Jon Mason, linux-kernel, Bjorn Helgaas, e1000-devel, Mary Mcgrath, linux-pci, Ben Hutchings, Ethan Zhao Hi Yijing, Thanks for your reference, the patch looks good for me, but I have no chance to test it on customer's env. Best Regards, Joe On 12/19/12 13:52, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2012/12/19 11:04, Joe Jin wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I backported mps commits and ask customer pass "pci=pcie_bus_peer2pee" to kernel >> to limited MPS to 128 and issue disappeared, sound like this is a BIOS bug. >> > > Hi Joe, > I found similar problem when I do pci hotplug, discussion is here:http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=134810569924220&w=2. > We try to improve Linux kernel to debug this problem easily based Bjorn's suggestion. Jon sent out the first version patch http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=135002016005274&w=2. > I think we can do further here, http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=135115581307869&w=2. I hope this information can help you. > > Thanks! > Yijing. > >> Thanks all of your help. >> >> Best Regards, >> Joe >> >> On 11/29/12 23:52, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >>> Someone else pointed this out to me locally. If you have a non-client BIOS, you should be able to set the MaxPayloadSize using setpci. You have to make sure that you're being consistent throughout all the associated links. >>> >>> Todd Fujinaka >>> Technical Marketing Engineer >>> LAN Access Division (LAD) >>> Intel Corporation >>> todd.fujinaka@intel.com >>> (503) 712-4565 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ethan Zhao [mailto:ethan.kernel@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:10 PM >>> To: Fujinaka, Todd >>> Cc: Joe Jin; Ben Hutchings; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci >>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >>> >>> Joe, >>> Possibly your customer is running a kernel without source code on a platform whose vendor wouldn't like to fix BIOS issue( Is that a HP/Dell server ?). >>> Anyway, to see if is a payload issue or, you could change the payload size with setpci tool to those devices and set the link retrain bit to trigger the link retraining to debug the issue and identity the root cause. I thinks it is much easier than modify the BIOS or eeprom of NIC. >>> >>> e.g. >>> set device control register to 0f 00 (128 bytes payload size) >>> # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 98.w=000f >>> set device link control register to 60h (retrain the link) >>> # setpci -v -s 00:02.0 a0.b=60 >>> >>> Hope it works, Just my 2 cents. >>> >>> Ethan.zhao@oracle.com >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Fujinaka, Todd <todd.fujinaka@intel.com> wrote: >>>> The only EEPROM I know about or can speak to is the one attached to the 82571 and it doesn't set the MaxPayloadSize. That's done by the BIOS. >>>> >>>> Todd Fujinaka >>>> Technical Marketing Engineer >>>> LAN Access Division (LAD) >>>> Intel Corporation >>>> todd.fujinaka@intel.com >>>> (503) 712-4565 >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Joe Jin [mailto:joe.jin@oracle.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:31 AM >>>> To: Ben Hutchings >>>> Cc: Fujinaka, Todd; Mary Mcgrath; netdev@vger.kernel.org; >>>> e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci >>>> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >>>> >>>> On 11/28/12 02:10, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 17:32 +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote: >>>>>> Forgive me if I'm being too repetitious as I think some of this has >>>>>> been mentioned in the past. >>>>>> >>>>>> We (and by we I mean the Ethernet part and driver) can only change >>>>>> the advertised availability of a larger MaxPayloadSize. The size is >>>>>> negotiated by both sides of the link when the link is established. >>>>>> The driver should not change the size of the link as it would be >>>>>> poking at registers outside of its scope and is controlled by the >>>>>> upstream bridge (not us). >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> MaxPayloadSize (MPS) is not negotiated between devices but is >>>>> programmed by the system firmware (at least for devices present at >>>>> boot - the kernel may be responsible in case of hotplug). You can >>>>> use the kernel parameter 'pci=pcie_bus_perf' (or one of several >>>>> others) to set a policy that overrides this, but no policy will allow >>>>> setting MPS above the device's MaxPayloadSizeSupported (MPSS). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ben, >>>> >>>> Unfortunately I'm using 3.0.x kernel and this is not included in the kernel. >>>> So I'm trying to use ethtool modify it from eeprom to see if help or no. >>>> >>>> >>>> Todd, I'll review all MaxPayload for all devices, but need to say if it mismatch, customer could not modify it from BIOS for there was not entry at there, to test it, we have to find how to verify if this is the root cause, so still need to find the offset in eeprom. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> Joe >>>> >> >> > > -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Joe Jin | Software Development Senior Manager | +8610.6106.5624 ORACLE | Linux and Virtualization No. 24 Zhongguancun Software Park, Haidian District | 100193 Beijing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-20 8:59 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Joe Jin @ 2012-11-20 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath On 11/20/12 16:59, Dave, Tushar N wrote: > Have you power off the system completely after modifying eeprom? If not please do so. Hi Tushar, Seems not works for me, would you please help to check what is wrong of my operations? Original eeprom dump: # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^ 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) <--snip--> Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <--snip--> # ethtool eth3 Settings for eth3: Supported ports: [ TP ] Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Supports auto-negotiation: Yes Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full 100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full 1000baseT/Full Advertised pause frame use: No Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full Port: Twisted Pair PHYAD: 1 Transceiver: internal Auto-negotiation: on MDI-X: off Supports Wake-on: d Wake-on: d Current message level: 0x00000007 (7) Link detected: yes # ethtool -E eth3 magic 0x10a48086 offset 0x34 value 0xa7 # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a7 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^ <== a6 --> a7 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # reboot # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a7 07 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) <--snip--> Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr+ UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend- LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L0s, Latency L0 <4us, L1 <64us ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- CommClk+ ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- <--snip--> # ethtool -E eth3 magic 0x10a48086 offset 0x35 value 0x17 # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 17 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^<== 07 -> 17 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # reboot # ethtool -e eth3 | head -8 Offset Values ------ ------ 0x0000 00 15 17 16 ee 9a 24 05 ff ff a2 50 ff ff ff ff 0x0010 57 d4 07 74 2f a4 a4 11 86 80 a4 10 86 80 65 b1 0x0020 08 00 a4 10 00 58 00 00 01 50 00 00 00 00 00 01 0x0030 f6 6c b0 37 a6 17 03 84 83 07 00 00 03 c3 02 06 ^^^^^<== 07 -> 17 0x0040 08 00 f0 0e 64 21 40 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0x0050 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 # lspci -s 0000:52:00.1 -vvv 52:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 06) <--snip--> Capabilities: [e0] Express (v1) Endpoint, MSI 00 DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset- DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable+ Non-Fatal+ Fatal+ Unsupported+ RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop+ MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 4096 bytes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr+ UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend- LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L0s, Latency L0 <4us, L1 <64us ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- Retrain- CommClk+ ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt- LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt- <--snip--> Thanks, Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-08 20:35 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-09 1:22 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 2:47 ` Joe Jin @ 2012-11-14 3:37 ` Li Yu 2012-11-14 3:43 ` Dave, Tushar N 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Li Yu @ 2012-11-14 3:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave, Tushar N; +Cc: Joe Jin, e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath 于 2012年11月09日 04:35, Dave, Tushar N 写道: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org] >> On Behalf Of Joe Jin >> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:25 PM >> To: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >> Subject: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >> >> Hi list, >> >> IHAC reported "82571EB Detected Hardware Unit Hang" on HP ProLiant DL360 >> G6, and have to reboot the server to recover: >> >> e1000e 0000:06:00.1: eth3: Detected Hardware Unit Hang: >> TDH <1a> >> TDT <1a> >> next_to_use <1a> >> next_to_clean <18> >> buffer_info[next_to_clean]: >> time_stamp <10047a74e> >> next_to_watch <18> >> jiffies <10047a88c> >> next_to_watch.status <1> >> MAC Status <80383> >> PHY Status <792d> >> PHY 1000BASE-T Status <3800> >> PHY Extended Status <3000> >> PCI Status <10> >> >> With newer kernel 2.0.0.1 the issue still reproducible. >> >> Device info: >> 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet >> Controller (Copper) (rev 06) >> 06:00.1 0200: 8086:10bc (rev 06) >> >> I compared lspci output before and after the issue, different as below: >> 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit Ethernet >> Controller (Copper) (rev 06) >> Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company NC364T PCI Express Quad Port >> Gigabit Server Adapter >> Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ >> Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx- >> - Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- >> <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx- >> + Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- >> +<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx+ > > Are you sure this is not similar issue as before that you reported. > i.e. > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:51 +0800, Joe Jin wrote: >> I'm seeing a Unit Hang even with the latest e1000e driver 2.0.0 when >> doing scp test. this issue is easy do reproduced on SUN FIRE X2270 M2, >> just copy a big file (>500M) from another server will hit it at once. > > All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max payload size otherwise it can cause hang. > Can you double check this? > We also found such hang problem on 82599EB (ixgbe driver) in RHEL6.3 kernel, we ever tried to upgrade to latest version (3.8.21 or 3.10.17), but it still happens. Is it probably also due to wrong "max payload size" set in BIOS? Thanks Yu > -Tushar > -- > 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/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* RE: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang 2012-11-14 3:37 ` Li Yu @ 2012-11-14 3:43 ` Dave, Tushar N 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Dave, Tushar N @ 2012-11-14 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Li Yu; +Cc: Joe Jin, e1000-devel, netdev, linux-kernel, Mary Mcgrath >-----Original Message----- >From: Li Yu [mailto:raise.sail@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:37 PM >To: Dave, Tushar N >Cc: Joe Jin; e1000-devel@lists.sf.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary Mcgrath >Subject: Re: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang > >于 2012年11月09日 04:35, Dave, Tushar N 写道: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org >>> [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org] >>> On Behalf Of Joe Jin >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:25 PM >>> To: e1000-devel@lists.sf.net >>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Mary >>> Mcgrath >>> Subject: 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang >>> >>> Hi list, >>> >>> IHAC reported "82571EB Detected Hardware Unit Hang" on HP ProLiant >>> DL360 G6, and have to reboot the server to recover: >>> >>> e1000e 0000:06:00.1: eth3: Detected Hardware Unit Hang: >>> TDH <1a> >>> TDT <1a> >>> next_to_use <1a> >>> next_to_clean <18> >>> buffer_info[next_to_clean]: >>> time_stamp <10047a74e> >>> next_to_watch <18> >>> jiffies <10047a88c> >>> next_to_watch.status <1> >>> MAC Status <80383> >>> PHY Status <792d> >>> PHY 1000BASE-T Status <3800> >>> PHY Extended Status <3000> >>> PCI Status <10> >>> >>> With newer kernel 2.0.0.1 the issue still reproducible. >>> >>> Device info: >>> 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit >>> Ethernet Controller (Copper) (rev 06) >>> 06:00.1 0200: 8086:10bc (rev 06) >>> >>> I compared lspci output before and after the issue, different as below: >>> 06:00.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82571EB Gigabit >>> Ethernet Controller (Copper) (rev 06) >>> Subsystem: Hewlett-Packard Company NC364T PCI Express Quad Port >>> Gigabit Server Adapter >>> Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ >>> Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx- >>> - Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- >>> <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx- >>> + Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- >>> +<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx+ >> >> Are you sure this is not similar issue as before that you reported. >> i.e. >> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:51 +0800, Joe Jin wrote: >>> I'm seeing a Unit Hang even with the latest e1000e driver 2.0.0 when >>> doing scp test. this issue is easy do reproduced on SUN FIRE X2270 >>> M2, just copy a big file (>500M) from another server will hit it at >once. >> >> All devices in path from root complex to 82571, should have *same* max >payload size otherwise it can cause hang. >> Can you double check this? >> > >We also found such hang problem on 82599EB (ixgbe driver) in RHEL6.3 >kernel, we ever tried to upgrade to latest version (3.8.21 or 3.10.17), >but it still happens. > >Is it probably also due to wrong "max payload size" set in BIOS? > It could be or could not be. I would suggest please create another thread with that issue as these two devices are significantly different. -Tushar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-19 6:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-11-08 6:24 82571EB: Detected Hardware Unit Hang Joe Jin 2012-11-08 20:35 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-09 1:22 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 2:47 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 3:45 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-15 0:32 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-15 20:26 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-19 5:38 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-20 8:59 ` Dave, Tushar N 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-26 16:23 ` [E1000-devel] " Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-27 0:59 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-27 2:06 ` Mary Mcgrath 2012-11-27 17:32 ` [E1000-devel] " Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-27 18:10 ` Ben Hutchings 2012-11-27 18:24 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-28 8:31 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-28 15:53 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-11-29 3:10 ` Ethan Zhao 2012-11-29 15:52 ` Fujinaka, Todd 2012-12-19 3:04 ` Joe Jin 2012-12-19 5:52 ` Yijing Wang 2012-12-19 6:13 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-20 13:24 ` Joe Jin 2012-11-14 3:37 ` Li Yu 2012-11-14 3:43 ` Dave, Tushar N
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).