Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262324AbTEUWrH (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 18:47:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262328AbTEUWrH (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 18:47:07 -0400 Received: from modemcable204.207-203-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.203.207.204]:10881 "EHLO montezuma.mastecende.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262324AbTEUWrG (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 18:47:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 18:50:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo X-X-Sender: zwane@montezuma.mastecende.com To: Paul Rolland cc: "'Corey Minyard'" , "" Subject: Re: e100 latency, cpu cycle saver and e1000... In-Reply-To: <011a01c31fa3$725354e0$3f00a8c0@witbe> Message-ID: References: <011a01c31fa3$725354e0$3f00a8c0@witbe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 957 Lines: 24 On Wed, 21 May 2003, Paul Rolland wrote: > Correct, machines are not idle... but > - they are doing globally the same work, > - this behavior is something I can reproduce test after test, since > I've started this morning... > > I started using that because IP1 was exhibiting high latency yesterday > 'til I rebooted it, and since it is working quite fine... > Of course, I can reboot also IP2, but I'd like to understand why > and how to avoid it later... One thing you can do to reduce packet handling latency (at the cost of CPU) with both the e1000 is drop down the RX Delay Interrupt timers, ditto for the Tx Delay. The hardware delays in increments of 1.024ms Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/