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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47AB9077.9000007@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:12:55 -0800
From:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	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

Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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?

well we're going to delete all pci-e related code from this driver soon anyway,
but I am indeed writing a patch right now that prints out this warning...

Auke
--
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/