Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933095AbYBGSfe (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:35:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755786AbYBGSfY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:35:24 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]:48255 "EHLO ithilien.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758165AbYBGSfX (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:35:23 -0500 Message-ID: <47AB4E30.3060409@qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:30:08 -0800 From: Max Krasnyansky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kok, Auke" CC: Pavel Machek , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, kernel list , john.ronciak@intel.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] e1000 1sec latency problem References: <20080207141718.GA2030@elf.ucw.cz> <47AB38AB.8050001@qualcomm.com> <47AB3EEF.6050005@intel.com> <47AB48B0.10403@qualcomm.com> <47AB49F3.301@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <47AB49F3.301@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2122 Lines: 44 Kok, Auke wrote: > Max Krasnyansky wrote: >> Kok, Auke wrote: >>> Max Krasnyansky wrote: >>>> So you don't think it's related to the interrupt coalescing by any chance ? >>>> I'd suggest to try and disable the coalescing and see if it makes any difference. >>>> We've had lots of issues with coalescing misbehavior. Not this bad (ie 1 second) though. >>>> >>>> Add this to modprobe.conf and reload e1000 module >>>> >>>> options e1000 RxIntDelay=0,0 RxAbsIntDelay=0,0 InterruptThrottleRate=0,0 TxIntDelay=0,0 TxAbsIntDelay=0,0 >>> that can't be the problem. irq moderation would only account for 2-3ms variance >>> maximum. >> Oh, I've definitely seen worse than that. Not as bad as a 1second though. Plus you're talking >> about the case when coalescing logic is working as designed ;-). What if there is some kind of >> bug where timer did not expire or something. > > we don't use a software timer in e1000 irq coalescing/moderation, it's all in > hardware, so we don't have that problem at all. And I certainly have never seen > anything you are referring to with e1000 hardware, and I do not know of any bug > related to this. > > are you maybe confused with other hardware ? > > feel free to demonstrate an example... Just to give you a background. I wrote and maintain http://libe1000.sf.net So I know E1000 HW and SW in and out. And no I'm not confused with other HW and I know that we're not using SW timers for the coalescing. HW can be buggy as well. Note that I'm not saying that I know for sure that the problem is coalescing, I'm just suggesting to take it out of the equation while Pavel is investigating. Unfortunately I cannot demonstrate an example but I've seen unexplained packet delays in the range of 1-20 milliseconds on E1000 HW (and boy ... I do have a lot of it in my labs). Once coalescing was disabled those problems have gone away. Max -- 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/