[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: BNX driver problem when mbuf clusters run out
On Apr 19, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Beverly Schwartz wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Beverly Schwartz wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, that can lead to receiver livelock (spend all the time
>>>> servicing interrupts without making progress). The best thing to do is
>>>> pass the packet up the stack and just another packet to the hardware.
>>>> Instead use bnx_tick to add mbufs if needed. This gives the stack a
>>>> chance to run and hopefully free some mbufs.
>>> I tried that. And at first, things move along. But eventually,
>>> bnx_rx_intr never gets called, because
>>> if (sblk->status_rx_quick_consumer_index0 != sc->nw_rx_cons)
>>> in bnx_intr always fails.
>> For now, can you try the patch at
>> It's kind of ugly but it is a minimal change.
> Doesn't quite do it. With this change, the sw_cons index doesn't get
> incremented. Next time bnx_rx_intr is called, we'll have the same overwrite
> problem. I'm now trying incremeing sw_cons before calling break. When I
> left work, it was still running. Tomorrow morning, I'll see if everything is
> still intact.
It should get incremented since
sw_cons = NEXT_RX_BD(sw_cons);
is after the loop.
Main Index |
Thread Index |