Re: [PATCH net 1/2] r8152: fix the sw rx checksum is unavailable

[Mark Lord <mlord@pobox.com>]

On 16-11-23 02:29 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 16-11-23 10:12 AM, Hayes Wang wrote:
>> Mark Lord [mlord@pobox.com]
>> [...]
>>> What does this code do:
>>
>>>> static void r8153_set_rx_early_size(struct r8152 *tp)
>>>> {
>>>>        u32 mtu = tp->netdev->mtu;
>>>>        u32 ocp_data = (agg_buf_sz - mtu - VLAN_ETH_HLEN - VLAN_HLEN) / 4;
>>>>
>>>>        ocp_write_word(tp, MCU_TYPE_USB, USB_RX_EARLY_SIZE, ocp_data);
>>>> }
>>
>> This only works for RTL8153. However, what you use is RTL8152.
>> It is like delay completion. It is used to reduce the loading of CPU
>> by letting a transfer contain more data to reduce the number of
>> transfers.
>>
>>> How is ocp_data used by the hardware?
>>> Shouldn't the calculation also include sizeof(rx_desc) in there somewhere?
>>
>> The algorithm is from our hw engineers, and it should be
>>
>>    (agg_buf_sz - packet size) / 8
>>
>> You could refer to commit a59e6d815226 ("r8152: correct the rx early size").
>
> Thanks.
>
> Right now I am working quite hard trying to narrow things down exactly.
> You are correct that the driver does appear to be careful about accesses
> beyond the filled portion of a URB buffer -- for some reason I thought
> the original driver had issues there, but looking again it does not seem to.
>
> One idea that is now looking more likely:
> Things could be suffering from speculative CPU accesses to RAM
> (the system here has non-coherent d-cache/RAM).
> This could incorrectly pre-load data from adjacent URB buffers
> into the d-cache, creating coherency issues.  I am testing now
> with cacheline-sized guard zones between the buffers to see if
> that is the issue or not.

Nope.  Guard zones did not fix it, so it's probably not a prefetch issue.
Oddly, adding a couple of memory barriers to specific places in the driver
does help, A LOT.  Still not 100%, but it did pass 1800 reboot tests over night
with only three bad rx_desc's reported.

That's a new record here for the driver using kmalloc'd buffers,
and put reliability on par with using non-cacheable buffers.

Any way we look at it though, the chip/driver are simply unreliable,
and relying upon hardware checksums (which fail due to the driver
looking at garbage rather than the checksum bits) leads to data corruption.

Cheers