Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH] e1000e: Remove Other from EIAC.

[Benjamin Poirier]

On 2018/01/19 17:59, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> On 2018/01/18 07:51, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > It was reported that emulated e1000e devices in vmware esxi 6.5 Build
> > > 7526125 do not link up after commit 4aea7a5c5e94 ("e1000e: Avoid receiver
> > > overrun interrupt bursts", v4.15-rc1). Some tracing shows that after
> > > e1000e_trigger_lsc() is called, ICR reads out as 0x0 in e1000_msix_other()
> > > on emulated e1000e devices. In comparison, on real e1000e 82574 hardware,
> > > icr=0x80000004 (_INT_ASSERTED | _OTHER) in the same situation.
> > 
> > Isn't 0x80000004 (_INT_ASSERTED | _LSC)? The assumption I based my
> 
> Yes. The numeric value is correct. I made a mistake when writing down
> the flag names.
> 
> > patch on was that the VMware code was sending _OTHER instead of _LSC
> > to trigger LSC events. As such in my version of the workaround I just
> 
> It's not so deterministic, sadly. In my tests, upon entry into
> e1000_msix_other() after e1000e_trigger_lsc(), with no workaround patch
> I've seen:
> icr=0x0
> icr=0x3d
> 	Reserved RXDMT0 Reserved LSC TXDW
> icr=0x46
> 	RXO LSC TXQE
> and someone else reported:
> icr=0x3c
> 	Reserved RXDMT0 Reserved LSC
> 
> > went through and did the testing if the _RXO bit was set, otherwise I
> > assumed that whatever event was received must have been meant to
> > trigger an _LSC type event since that worked in the past.
                               ^...

Re-reading that part, my thoughts are that it worked in the past, before
16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt", v4.5-rc1),
because (presumably) Other was not set in EIAC. It worked after
16ecba59bc33 but before 4aea7a5c5e94 ("e1000e: Avoid receiver overrun
interrupt bursts", v4.15-rc1) because e1000_msix_other() didn't read the
value of icr. If it had, it would've found a bogus value, which is
what's happening after 4aea7a5c5e94. I wonder if we're not just getting
some uninitialized value from the emulation code... which makes me kind
of uneasy about your approach of trying to make sense of the value.
Maybe Shrikrishna can clarify where the icr value is coming from when
Other is set in EIAC.

> > 
> > > Some experimentation showed that this flaw in vmware e1000e emulation can
> > > be worked around by not setting Other in EIAC. This is how it was before
> > > 16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt", v4.5-rc1).
> > 
> > Did this actually set the _LSC bit or was it just giving you the
> > _OTHER bit? The ICR for that combination would come out 0x81000000.
> 
> With my patch, after e1000e_trigger_lsc(), it results in icr=0x81000004
> on real and emulated hardware.
> 
> IMO, the resulting icr read is cleaner than with your patch but it
> depends on an undocumented quirk of the emulated vmware e1000e, so I
> don't know which of the two workarounds is more desirable.
> 
> If you'd like to stick with your patch though, I think that you should
> definitely rewrite it as:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> index 9f18d39bdc8f..68c0bcb8287f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> @@ -1928,7 +1928,12 @@ static irqreturn_t e1000_msix_other(int __always_unused irq, void *data)
>  			__napi_schedule(&adapter->napi);
>  		}
>  	}
> -	if (icr & E1000_ICR_LSC) {
> +	if (icr & E1000_ICR_LSC || !(icr & E1000_ICR_RXO)) {
> +		/* We assume if the RXO bit is not set that this is a
> +		 * link status change event. This is needed due to emulated
> +		 * versions of the device that may not correctly populate
> +		 * the LSC bit.
> +		 */
>  		ew32(ICR, E1000_ICR_LSC);
>  		hw->mac.get_link_status = true;
>  		/* guard against interrupt when we're going down */
> 
> > 
> > > Fixes: 4aea7a5c5e94 ("e1000e: Avoid receiver overrun interrupt bursts")
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Jeff, I'm sending as RFC since it looks like a problem that should be fixed
> > > in vmware. If you'd like to have the workaround in e1000e, I'll submit.
> > 
> > I would appreciate it if you could review/test the patch I submitted
> > for the same issue. Specifically I would want to make certain that it
> > still addresses the original RXO interrupt burst issue your reported.
> 
> I've tested both my patch and yours; they both allow link up on vmware;
> link up on real 82574 and rxo mitigation on real 82574. I couldn't
> conveniently test rxo on vmware.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > - Alex
> >