| To: | Michael Chan <mchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] fix BUG in tg3_tx |
| From: | Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 May 2004 02:04:43 +1000 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <B1508D50A0692F42B217C22C02D849727FEDB8@NT-IRVA-0741.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> |
| References: | <B1508D50A0692F42B217C22C02D849727FEDB8@NT-IRVA-0741.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.27i |
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:04:24PM -0700, Michael Chan wrote: > [...] A few years ago we saw cases where there were tx completions > on BDs that had not been sent. It turned out that on that machine, the > chipset was re-ordering the posted mmio writes to the send mailbox > register from 2 CPUs.[...] On a related note, is there a good reason why the tg3 driver uses the on-chip SRAM send ring by default instead of the host send ring? This seems like it would dramatically increase the PIO load on the chipset for some of the workloads I'm interested in. Greg. -- Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. I don't speak for SGI. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [MailServer Notification]To Sender virus found and action taken., Administrator |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Update FarSync WAN driver in 2.4 and 2.6, Kevin Curtis |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] fix BUG in tg3_tx, Greg Banks |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] fix BUG in tg3_tx, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |