linux-kernel - Re: [E1000-devel] e1000 1sec latency problem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080207223709.GC6096@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:37:09 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Cc:	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, john.ronciak@...el.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] e1000 1sec latency problem

On Thu 2008-02-07 14:32:16, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> >>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
> >>>
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=68 ttl=56 time=351.9 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=69 ttl=56 time=209.2 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=70 ttl=56 time=1004.1 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=71 ttl=56 time=308.9 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=72 ttl=56 time=305.4 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=73 ttl=56 time=9.8 ms
> >>> 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=74 ttl=56 time=3.7 ms
> >>>
> >>> ...and they are still there in 2.6.25-git0. I had ethernet EEPROM
> >>> checksum problems, which I fixed by the update, but problems are not
> >>> gone.
> >> pavel, start using "e1000e" instead - this driver replaces e1000 for all the
> >> pci-express devices and has the infamous L1 ASPM disable patch to
> >> fix this issue.
> > 
> > Ok, e1000e seems to work for me.
> > 
> > In another email, you asked for lspci -vvvv of failing e1000
> > case. Should I still provide it?
> 
> well, if you do it you should see that L1 ASPM is now disabled (with e1000e)
> whereas with e1000 it is still enabled. That's the fix that you need...

Is there easy way to push that fix to e1000, too? Or print "use e1000e
instead" and refuse to load?
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/