> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: 2024年10月1日 6:03
> To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@xxxxxxx>;
> ast@xxxxxxxxxx; daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; hawk@xxxxxxxxxx;
> john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rkannoth@xxxxxxxxxxx; maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx;
> sbhatta@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 3/3] net: enetc: disable IRQ after Rx and Tx BD rings
> are disabled
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 10:45:06AM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> > When running "xdp-bench tx eno0" to test the XDP_TX feature of ENETC
> > on LS1028A, it was found that if the command was re-run multiple times,
> > Rx could not receive the frames, and the result of xdo-bench showed
> > that the rx rate was 0.
> >
> > root@ls1028ardb:~# ./xdp-bench tx eno0
> > Hairpinning (XDP_TX) packets on eno0 (ifindex 3; driver fsl_enetc)
> > Summary 2046 rx/s 0
> err,drop/s
> > Summary 0 rx/s 0
> err,drop/s
> > Summary 0 rx/s 0
> err,drop/s
> > Summary 0 rx/s 0
> err,drop/s
> >
> > By observing the Rx PIR and CIR registers, we found that CIR is always
> > equal to 0x7FF and PIR is always 0x7FE, which means that the Rx ring
> > is full and can no longer accommodate other Rx frames. Therefore, we
> > can conclude that the problem is caused by the Rx BD ring not being
> > cleaned up.
> >
> > Further analysis of the code revealed that the Rx BD ring will only
> > be cleaned if the "cleaned_cnt > xdp_tx_in_flight" condition is met.
> > Therefore, some debug logs were added to the driver and the current
> > values of cleaned_cnt and xdp_tx_in_flight were printed when the Rx
> > BD ring was full. The logs are as follows.
> >
> > [ 178.762419] [XDP TX] >> cleaned_cnt:1728, xdp_tx_in_flight:2140
> > [ 178.771387] [XDP TX] >> cleaned_cnt:1941, xdp_tx_in_flight:2110
> > [ 178.776058] [XDP TX] >> cleaned_cnt:1792, xdp_tx_in_flight:2110
> >
> > From the results, we can see that the max value of xdp_tx_in_flight
> > has reached 2140. However, the size of the Rx BD ring is only 2048.
> > This is incredible, so we checked the code again and found that
> > xdp_tx_in_flight did not drop to 0 when the bpf program was uninstalled
> > and it was not reset when the bfp program was installed again. The
> > root cause is that the IRQ is disabled too early in enetc_stop(),
> > resulting in enetc_recycle_xdp_tx_buff() not being called, therefore,
> > xdp_tx_in_flight is not cleared.
> >
> > Fixes: ff58fda09096 ("net: enetc: prioritize ability to go down over packet
> processing")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2 changes:
> > 1. Modify the titile and rephrase the commit meesage.
> > 2. Use the new solution as described in the title
> > ---
>
> I gave this another test under a bit different set of circumstances this time,
> and I'm confident that there are still problems, which I haven't identified
> though (yet).
>
> With 64 byte frames at 2.5 Gbps, I see this going on:
>
> $ xdp-bench tx eno0 &
> $ while :; do taskset $((1 << 0)) hwstamp_ctl -i eno0 -r 1 && sleep 1 && taskset
> $((1 << 0)) hwstamp_ctl -i eno0 -r 0 && sleep 1; done
> current settings:
> tx_type 0
> rx_filter 0
> new settings:
> tx_type 0
> rx_filter 1
> Summary 1,556,952 rx/s 0 err,drop/s
> Summary 0 rx/s 0 err,drop/s
> Summary 0 rx/s 0 err,drop/s
> current settings:
> tx_type 0
> rx_filter 1
> Summary 0 rx/s 0 err,drop/s
> [ 883.780346] fsl_enetc 0000:00:00.0 eno0: timeout for tx ring #6 clear (its
> RX ring has 2072 XDP_TX frames in flight)
> new settings:
> tx_type 0
> rx_filter 0
> Summary 1,027 rx/s 0 err,drop/s
> current settings:
> tx_type 0
> rx_filter 0
> Summary 0 rx/s 0 err,drop/s
>
> which looks like the symptoms that the patch tries to solve.
>
> My previous testing was with 390 byte frames, and this did not happen.
>
> Please do not merge this.
Oh, it looks like there are still some issues we don't know about. I did
test using 64 bytes but not at that high of a rate. Also I didn't turn on
timestamp. Anyway, I will try to reproduce the issue when I'm back to
office next Tuesday. It would be nice if you can help find the root cause
before next Tuesday, thanks!
