netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Simon Kirby <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3BBC8692.9F48DA85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Ben Greear wrote:

> jamal wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> > > The tulip driver only started working for my DLINK 4-port NIC after
> > > about 2.4.8, and last I checked the ZYNX 4-port still refuses to work,
> > > so I wouldn't consider it a paradigm of stability and grace quite yet.
> >
> > The tests in www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/247-res/ were done with 4-port znyx
> > cards using 2.4.7.
> > What kind of problems are you having? Maybe i can help.
>
> Mostly problems with auto-negotiation it seems.  Earlier 2.4 kernels
> just would never go 100bt/FD.  Later (broken) versions would claim to
> be 100bt/FD, but they still showed lots of collisions and frame errors.
>
> I'll try the ZYNX on the latest kernel in the next few days and let you
> know what I find...

Please do.

>
> > My point is that the API exists. Driver owners could use it; this
> > discussion seems to have at least helped to point in the existence of the
> > API. Alexey had the hardware flow control in there since 2.1.x .., us
> > that at least. In my opinion, Ingos patch is radical enough to be allowed
> > in when we are approaching stability. And it is a lazy way of solving the
> > problem
>
> The API has been there since 2.1.x, and yet few drivers support it?  I
> can see why Ingo decided to fix the problem generically.

That logic is convoluted.

> > > cat /proc/net/softnet_stat
> > > 2b85c320 0000d374 6524ce48 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 0$
> > > 2b8b5e29 0000d615 653eba32 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 0$
>
> So you're priting out counters in HEX??  This seems one place where a nice
> base-10 number would be appropriate :)

Its mostly for formating reasons:
2b85c320 is 730186528 (and wont fit in one line)

cheers,
jamal


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>