Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161078AbWASHYv (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:24:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161079AbWASHYv (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:24:51 -0500 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:54718 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161078AbWASHYv (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:24:51 -0500 Subject: Re: My vote against eepro* removal From: Lee Revell To: kus Kusche Klaus Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:24:48 -0500 Message-Id: <1137655489.4736.33.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.5.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1000 Lines: 26 On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > Last time I tested (around 2.6.12), eepro100 worked much better > in -rt kernels w.r.t. latencies than e100: > > e100 caused a periodic latency of about 500 microseconds > exactly every 2 seconds, no matter what the load on the interface > was (i.e. even on an idle interface). > > eepro100 did not show any latencies that long, it worked much > smoother w.r.t. latencies. > > Of course I would prefer to have e100 fixed over keeping eepro100 > around forever, but the last time I checked, it still wasn't fixed. Please provide latency traces to illustrate the problematic code path. It sounds like you have known about this issue for a while, were you waiting for it to fix itself? Lee - 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/