DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=OH7NsQrZpWQAmiOjSRMDvfccdsSa5pkeV/HZidFfSrYnJPiOydNKv837nKmTp/Dwu/
         582K25fHxLDI+NV9IcTMrF/aoqXl6qM0cjQ5SoRNbmiWGwInLCnpUhfpHNKw0B2utokC
         w6zkUsLb6cuEVfaG96J1btZ7QSvQ0YnV3SHWQ=
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:05:25 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
       Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
       e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: large packet loss take2 2.6.31.x
Message-ID: <20091204090524.GB6478@ff.dom.local>
References: <81bfc67a0911232217n41b9ac02w3b7770b789e5d209@mail.gmail.com> <20091124111946.GA7883@ff.dom.local> <81bfc67a0911250606k1ec76354n217da9ca20b3517c@mail.gmail.com> <20091125191105.GA3167@ami.dom.local> <81bfc67a0911271007o1fb8f8c2vdd36e8585280e4da@mail.gmail.com> <20091127213640.GA2611@ami.dom.local> <81bfc67a0911271435g4106652bpe8c9ea07893d0ebd@mail.gmail.com> <20091127224206.GA3350@ami.dom.local> <81bfc67a0912031749y15faed66s9c8a924684c97a19@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <81bfc67a0912031749y15faed66s9c8a924684c97a19@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1820
Lines: 41

On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 08:49:17PM -0500, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> >
> > modprobe -r e1000e
> > modprobe e1000e IntMode=0
> >
> > Jarek P.
> >
> tested on kernel behaving properly no change. what do these modes do?

e1000e by default uses MSI-X interrupts if possible, which are most
modern. If there are some problems IntMode lets us try older types,
so I rather meant it for the misbehaving kernel.

> 
> I've installed a 10/100 linksys nic into my system. it appears to be
> working fine on a bad kernel (2.6.32-final tested and for sure
> verified). I've only tested it once though. my laptop died so direct
> connection between that won't work. can I test between these 2 nics?
> (suppose no real reason why not) but what should I proceed with at
> this point?

If you have it fixed easily with another nic you should first
reconsider if this debugging is worth of your time. Of course it's
could be very useful for the kernel (unless it's a hardware fault),
but on the other hand this is a popular nic, tested by many people.

Then, if you find time for such testing, I'd suggest to try mainly
2.6.32 - I'm not sure if you tried it with e1000e. So if after longer
testing both linksys and e1000e you find only the latter has problems
I think you should open the new report in bugzilla for e1000e and
submit things like: dmesg, .config, lspci -v from 2.6.32, and if
possible the same things from the last kernel which didn't have these
problems. Add some references to previous attempts in bugzilla and
this thread. (Btw, any reproducible tests should be fine.)

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/