Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965587AbXHIPcX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:32:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965306AbXHIPaN (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:30:13 -0400 Received: from mx12.go2.pl ([193.17.41.142]:59228 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S940212AbXHIPaG (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:30:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 17:30:39 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Andi Kleen Cc: Ingo Molnar , Chuck Ebbert , =?iso-8859-2?B?PT9pc28tODg1OS0yP3E/IE1hcmNpbiCmbHVzYXJ6Pz0=?= , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jean-Baptiste Vignaud , linux-kernel , shemminger , linux-net , netdev , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC] Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time Message-ID: <20070809153039.GB4955@ff.dom.local> References: <20070726085523.GA3423@ff.dom.local> <20070726091254.GA8063@elte.hu> <4bacf17f0707300029g5116e70bq4808059dc8b069f1@mail.gmail.com> <20070731132037.GC1046@ff.dom.local> <4bacf17f0708060000n5a00bb77i74adc3b4b28ac42b@mail.gmail.com> <20070806070300.GA4509@elte.hu> <46B75DD4.5080709@redhat.com> <20070806190812.GD26868@elte.hu> <20070809145026.GB3064@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1290 Lines: 34 On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Jarek Poplawski writes: > > > It seems, we can start to think about some preferred solutions, > > already. Here are some of my preliminary conclusions and suggestions. > > > > The problem of timeouts with some 'older' network cards seems to hit > > mainly x86_64 arch, and after diagnosing and testing (still beeing > > done) it's caused by resending level type irqs. > > i386 interrupt code should be similar, except for the lack of > per CPU irqs, but that shouldnt' affect resending. > > > > > Possible solutions: > > We should probably at least add some statistic counters to the > standard kernel to try to detect these cases. > > > It looks like these changes are needed for this x86_64 only, > > Why? Maybe I missed something, but considering the popularity of i386 there was not so much of consistent reporting?! I was very surprised, when I read a few days ago that Linus seems to think that this one here is only an individual problem... Jarek P. - 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/