Re: stmmac ethernet in kernel 4.9-rc6: coalescing related pauses.

Hi!

quoted

quoted

1 HZ, which is the lowest granularity of non-highres timers in the
kernel, is variable as well as already too large of a delay for
effective TX coalescing.

I seriously think that the TX coalescing support should be ripped out
or disabled entirely until it is implemented properly in this
driver.

Ok, I'd disable coalescing, but could not figure it out till. What is
generic way to do that?

It seems only thing stmmac_tx_timer() does is calling
stmmac_tx_clean(), which reclaims tx_skbuff[] entries. It should be
possible to do that explicitely, without delay, but it stops working
completely if I attempt to do that.

On a side note, stmmac_poll() does stmmac_enable_dma_irq() while
stmmac_dma_interrupt() disables interrupts. But I don't see any
protection between the two, so IMO it could race and we'd end up
without polling or interrupts...

the idea behind the TX mitigation is to mix the interrupt and
timer and this approach gave us real benefit in terms
of performances and CPU usage (especially on SH4-200/SH4-300 platforms
based).

Well, if you have a workload that sends and receive packets, it tends
to work ok, as you do tx_clean() in stmmac_poll(). My workload is not
like that -- it is "sending packets at 3MB/sec, receiving none". So
the stmmac_tx_timer() is rescheduled and rescheduled and rescheduled,
and then we run out of transmit descriptors, and then 40msec passes,
and then we clean them. Bad.

And that's why low-res timers do not cut it.

In the ring, some descriptors can raise the irq (according to a
threshold) and set the IC bit. In this path, the NAPI  poll will be
scheduled.

Not NAPI poll but stmmac_tx_timer(), right? 

But there is a timer that can run (and we experimented that no high
resolution is needed) to clear the tx resources.
Concerning the lock protection, we had reviewed long time ago and
IIRC, no raise condition should be present. Open to review it,
again!

Well, I certainly like the fact that we are talking :-).

And yes, I have some questions.

There's nothing that protect stmmac_poll() from running concurently
with stmmac_dma_interrupt(), right?

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html