On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:20:35PM +0300, Lifshits, Vitaly wrote:
On 6/18/2025 4:41 PM, Christian Heusel wrote:
On 25/06/18 03:28PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 02:17:32AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 01:28:36AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 01:13:28AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
Dear Marek, dear Vitaly,
Am 09.05.25 um 00:41 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki: > On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 09:26:18AM +0300, Lifshits, Vitaly > > On 4/21/2025 4:28 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 03:19:12PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 03:44:02PM +0300, Lifshits, Vitaly wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/16/2025 3:43 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Lifshits, Vitaly wrote: > > > > > > > Can you please also share the output of ethtool -i? I would like to know the > > > > > > > NVM version that you have on your device. > > > > > > > > > > > > driver: e1000e > > > > > > version: 6.14.1+ > > > > > > firmware-version: 1.1-4 > > > > > > expansion-rom-version: > > > > > > bus-info: 0000:00:1f.6 > > > > > > supports-statistics: yes > > > > > > supports-test: yes > > > > > > supports-eeprom-access: yes > > > > > > supports-register-dump: yes > > > > > > supports-priv-flags: yes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your firmware version is not the latest, can you check with the board > > > > > manufacturer if there is a BIOS update to your system? > > > > > > > > I can check, but still, it's a regression in the Linux driver - old > > > > kernel did work perfectly well on this hw. Maybe new driver tries to use > > > > some feature that is missing (or broken) in the old firmware? > > > > > > A little bit of context: I'm maintaining the kernel package for a Qubes > > > OS distribution. While I can try to update firmware on my test system, I > > > have no influence on what hardware users will use this kernel, and > > > which firmware version they will use (and whether all the vendors > > > provide newer firmware at all). I cannot ship a kernel that is known > > > to break network on some devices. > > > > > > > > Also, you mentioned that on another system this issue doesn't reproduce, do > > > > > they have the same firmware version? > > > > > > > > The other one has also 1.1-4 firmware. And I re-checked, e1000e from > > > > 6.14.2 works fine there.
> > Thank you for your detailed feedback and for providing the requested > > information. > > > > We have conducted extensive testing of this patch across multiple systems > > and have not observed any packet loss issues. Upon comparing the mentioned > > setups, we noted that while the LAN controller is similar, the CPU differs. > > We believe that the issue may be related to transitions in the CPU's low > > power states. > > > > Consequently, we kindly request that you disable the CPU low power state > > transitions in the S0 system state and verify if the issue persists. You can > > disable this in the kernel parameters on the command line with idle=poll. > > Please note that this command is intended for debugging purposes only, as it > > may result in higher power consumption. > > I tried with idle=poll, and it didn't help, I still see a lot of packet > losses. But I can also confirm that idle=poll makes the system use > significantly more power (previously at 25-30W, with this option stays > at about 42W). > > Is there any other info I can provide, enable some debug features or > something? > > I see the problem is with receiving packets - in my simple ping test, > the ping target sees all the echo requests (and respond to them), but > the responses aren't reaching ping back (and are not visible on tcpdump > on the problematic system either).
As the cause is still unclear, can the commit please be reverted in the master branch due adhere to Linux’ no-regression policy, so that it can be reverted from the stable series?
Marek, did you also test 6.15 release candidates?
The last test I did was on 6.15-rc3. I can re-test on -rc5.
Same with 6.15-rc5.
And the same issue still applies to 6.16-rc2. FWIW Qubes OS kernel has this buggy patch revered and nobody complained (contrary to the version with the patch included). Should I submit the revert patch?
It is not a good idea to revert this patch as most of the systems will encounter the original issues (PHY access and packet loss). The reason I first introduced this patch was because big vendors reported the packet loss issue. You can refer to the following sightings: https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/816003 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/2066064 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218869
It would be useful to have any of those links in the original commit...
As an intermediate solution we can either use a privileged flag to make it configurable. I will share with you a patch that might fix the issue on your system that I would like you to try.
Yes, that patch works :)
FYI, we are currently investigating a similar issue that seems to be due to a misconfiguration of the system firmware.
Can you share some details? I can forward the info to firmware developers for this system (it's Dasharo - coreboot-based firmware).