[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0806191325s4c10660dt8da146ad2ef4e63b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:25:17 +0200
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "Robert Hancock" <hancockr@...w.ca>
Cc: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, varunc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, greg@...ah.com,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Strange problem with e1000 driver - ping packet loss
On 6/19/08, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> wrote:
> Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I happened to look at a system which was exhibiting poor ping
> > performance with e1000 driver (in 2.6.25) and had some questions regarding
> that.
> >
> > Ping test was done between the system and a laptop, which were connected
> > using a straight ethernet cable. Ping reported round trip times running
> > into seconds (!) and also packet loss.
> >
> > Upon some investigation, I found that the interrupt count field in
> > /proc/interrupts (associated with eth1) is not incrementing as fast as
> > it should. Moreover eth1 interrupt line is shared with the hard disk
> > interrupt (ata_piix) as below:
Just FYI, it seems that more people have the same (?) problem:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0806.2/0499.html
It might be worth joining forces to fight down the bug once and for
all if it's still not fixed after one and a half years? Sorry, I
really meant error instead of bug.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists