Message-ID: <47AB5419.6020309@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:55:21 -0800
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>
CC: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
       jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       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> <47AB4E30.3060409@qualcomm.com> <47AB509B.4030401@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <47AB509B.4030401@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3012
Lines: 59

Kok, Auke wrote:
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> wow, even I do not dare to say that!
Ok maybe that was a bit of an overstatement :). 

>> 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.
> 
> this sounds like you have some sort of PCI POST-ing problem and those can indeed
> be worse if you use any form of interrupt coalescing. In any case that is largely
> irrelevant to the in-kernel drivers, and as I said we definately have no open
> issues on that right now, and I really do not recollect any as well either (other
> than the issue of interference when both ends are irq coalescing)
I was actually talking about in kernel drivers. ie We were seeing delays with TIPC running over in
kernel E1000 driver. And no it was not a TIPC issue, everything worked fine with over TG3 and issues
went away when coalescing was disabled. 
Anyway, I think we can drop this subject.

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/