|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-users] Re: [Xen-devel] Re: HVM DomU, msi_translate=0, MSI/MSI-X PCI passthrough fails.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 4:48:57 PM, you wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:05:50PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >> >> Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 2:48:48 PM, you wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:37:15PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >> >> Hello Mark, >> >> > Hi >> >> >> >> >> Just a recap: >> >> you pass through: >> >> - 3 physical nics/IGB >> >> - 1 ISDN pci ISDN box >> >> > The redfone box runs on 1 of the nics - its not seperate. It converts >> > ISDN to TDMoE see here.. http://www.red-fone.com/ >> >> So the problem is probably with the igb's. >> Searching showed http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=32171 , >> perhaps worth a try ? > Tried this - doesn't help. >> >> Have you tried with just 1 IGB, and/or another simple 1gb NIC (non intel) to >> see if it's due to any of the special offload features ? > Haven't got any other NIC's to try unfortunately. Even if it did work > with 1, it would be no use to me as I need 3. I understand, but simplifying the setup and trying to isolate the problem, could clarify things. I also read you previous thread, and i saw you hide the 02:00.0 and 03:00.0 with xen-pciback (e1000e driver) there, but now you seem to be passing through 08:00.0 and 08:00.1 (igb) ? So i assume you have already tried 2 different NIC's http://download.intel.com/design/network/specupdt/82574.pdf though shows some errata regarding msi-x interrupts and timing issues and workarounds on the 82574 (02:00.0 and 03:00.0) nics. -- Sander >> >> >> >> - all using msi/msi-x interrupts ? >> >> > I tried using msi/msi-x interrupts, but it caused the raid card to drop >> > off (after some use) and provided seemingly even worse performance than >> > pegging everything back to legacy. >> >> >> >> >> Have you tried using a PV domU instead of a HVM domU ? >> >> > I initially tried PV but had issues with the igb NIC's. There was >> > another thread somewhere about my issues with that. >> >> >> >> Have you tried passing through only the ISDN box, and let the network run >> >> with the xen backend/frontend to rule out the IGB/network stuff ? >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sander >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 1:58:55 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi - Apologies to top post this, but after alot of testing, I believe >> >> > there must be an issue with IRQ's going missing between domU and dom0. >> >> > Unfortunately I have no data to prove this! >> >> >> >> > With msitranslate=0 as detailed below, and pci=nomsi in the guest kernel >> >> > grub config, all 3 NIC's appear OK in the domU however I still had >> >> > issues with the red-fone ISDN box. The interrupts were showing correctly >> >> > (2000/s) in the domU but communication to the device via the NIC was >> >> > still being interrupted (as shown in the asterisk console)Note that to >> >> > get the igb driver to allow this many interrupts, the >> >> > InterruptThrottleRate was set to 0. The same config (red-fone box, >> >> > asterisk etc) works fine with a physical server. >> >> >> >> > There is also the additional issue that I could not get the passthrough >> >> > NIC's to show correctly when I also had a bridge setup. >> >> >> >> > Throughout my testing however, I could not get the machine to crash. >> >> >> >> > Not sure where to go with this one. For now we are keeping our VoIP >> >> > servers physical when ISDN connections are required. >> >> >> >> > Regards, >> >> > Mark >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:36:35AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In my new test setup, I have seen some strange behaviour. 1 of the >> >> >> > HVM's >> >> >> > (with identical config in dom0 and domU) suddenly would not allow the >> >> >> > igb driver to be loaded in domU, even though the device was visible >> >> >> > in >> >> >> >> >> >> Let's create a new thread for this other issue. >> >> >> >> >> >> > lspci. Shutting the machine down, removing the power cord, waiting 5 >> >> >> > seconds then plugging it in again corrected that issue - Is this >> >> >> > possibly a motherboard bug? I have also disabled the SR-IOV >> >> >> > functionality in the BIOS incase this is causing any issues. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In addition, to try to correct the MSI issue noted above, I have >> >> >> > changed >> >> >> > my pci= line to the following: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > pci=[ '08:00.0,msitranslate=0', '08:00.1,msitranslate=0' ] >> >> >> >> >> >> With the msi_translate=1 turned on the DomU HVM guests did work, right? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This has stopped the "already in use on device" log, and the devices >> >> >> > appear to show correctly in the domU. Is it safe to disable >> >> >> > msitranslate? as I understand it, its for allowing multifunction >> >> >> > devices >> >> >> > to be seen as such in domU. Is that correct? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I haven't been able to reproduce the dropped raid issue yet, but I am >> >> >> > awaiting delivery of the Red-Fone boxes (ISDN VoIP) which seem to >> >> >> > cause >> >> >> > this due to their very high interrupt usage (2000 per second). >> >> >> >> >> >> OK. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In the mean time, I can see the following in the qemu-dm logs now >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > the msitranslate=0 enabled. Is it anything to worry about? >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, the "Error" ones are pretty bad, thought I am having a hard time >> >> >> understanding what it means. Lets copy some of the QEMU folks on this. >> >> >> >> >> >> > pt_pci_write_config: Warning: Guest attempt to set address to unused >> >> >> > Base Address Register. [00:05.0][Offset:14h][Length:4] >> >> >> > pt_ioport_map: e_phys=ffff pio_base=e880 len=32 index=2 first_map=0 >> >> >> > pt_ioport_map: e_phys=c220 pio_base=e880 len=32 index=2 first_map=0 >> >> >> > pt_pci_write_config: Warning: Guest attempt to set address to unused >> >> >> > Base Address Register. [00:06.0][Offset:14h][Length:4] >> >> >> > pt_ioport_map: e_phys=ffff pio_base=ec00 len=32 index=2 first_map=0 >> >> >> > pt_ioport_map: e_phys=c240 pio_base=ec00 len=32 index=2 first_map=0 >> >> >> > pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 0 with pirq 4f gvec 59 >> >> >> > pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 1 with pirq 4e gvec 61 >> >> >> > pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 2 with pirq 4d gvec 69 >> >> >> > pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 3 with pirq 4c gvec 71 >> >> >> > pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 4 with pirq 4b gvec 79 >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 0 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 0 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 0 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 1 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 1 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 1 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 2 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 2 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 2 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 3 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 3 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 3 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 4 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 4 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > pci_msix_writel: Error: Can't update msix entry 4 since MSI-X is >> >> >> > already function. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Not yet. Need to serial log of the Linux kernel and the Xen >> >> >> > > hypervisor when your >> >> >> > > machine is toast. I mentioned in the previous email the key >> >> >> > > sequences - look on Google >> >> >> > > on how to pass in SysRQ if you are using a serial concentrator. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I will do this when I can get the machine to crash. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Best Regards, >> >> >> > Mark >> >> >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > Xen-devel mailing list >> >> >> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> >> Sander mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Sander mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users -- Best regards, Sander mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |