[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <453BF19A.5020703@google.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:32:58 -0700
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>
CC: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Strange errors from e1000 driver (2.6.18)
Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> Analysis follows, but I wanted to ask you to bisect back if you can to
> find the apparent patch to make the difference. Basically at this
> point I'd say its not likely to be an e1000 issue, but I'd like to
> follow up and make sure.
That's going to be ugly, since I can't reproduce it at will. Maybe if
I netperf it to the other box I can push it over.
> Nothing seems out of order, but the latency may be low, I'd be curious
> what these looked like before with the old kernel. Some of the other
> things to compare would have been the lspci -vv output from your
> chipset with old/new kernel, in case the bridge/system configuration
> changed. There are no known problems right now with this chipset
> 82546EB
OK. will try later when I have more time. For now I switched to the
onboard via rhine controller.
> shared int, fine, but whats with the ERR: ?
Hmm. Having rebooted they look rather lower. but might be a time thing.
CPU0
0: 1405995 XT-PIC timer
1: 5910 XT-PIC i8042
2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
5: 0 XT-PIC uhci_hcd:usb3
7: 27135 XT-PIC ehci_hcd:usb2, VIA8237, eth0
10: 0 XT-PIC uhci_hcd:usb4, uhci_hcd:usb5,
uhci_hcd:usb6
11: 0 XT-PIC ehci_hcd:usb1, uhci_hcd:usb7,
uhci_hcd:usb8
12: 157547 XT-PIC i8042
14: 36296 XT-PIC ide0
15: 196690 XT-PIC ide1
NMI: 0
LOC: 1406006
ERR: 26
> except you didn't include any of the e1000 load information nor the
> system's boot information as it came up.
OK, it had gone since reboot, but I rebooted just now .... new info
attached.
> This chipset is one of the most frequent common elements in problem
> reports of TX hangs for e1000. My current theory (we've bought a
> bunch of these systems and never reproduced the issue) is that there
> is something either design specific or BIOS specific that causes this
> chipset to interact very badly with e1000 hardware. Some systems have
> the issue and some don't. If you could bisect back to a working point
> it would be interesting to see where that pointed.
OK, is going to be hard to bisect, since the other one was an Ubuntu
kernel, but I guess I can give 2.6.15 virgin a shot, at least.
> doesn't seem you're overclocked. Good.
Nah, I'm pretty conservative with hardware, get enough problems when
it's all running within specs ;-)
Thanks for looking at all this.
M.
View attachment "dmesg" of type "text/plain" (14156 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists