[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f236af8821e54127be4f1af2e8a998e9@APLEX07.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:40:54 +0000
From: "Woodford, Timothy W." <Timothy.Woodford@...apl.edu>
To: "Woodford, Timothy W." <Timothy.Woodford@...apl.edu>,
"Avargil, Raanan" <raanan.avargil@...el.com>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out
systim sanitization
>>> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion from Jesse Brandeburg.
>>>
>>> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as needed.
>>> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that could/should be converted similarly.
>>
>> Looks ok to me.
>> Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)?
>> This counter is set to 50.
>> Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) and see what happens?
> I'll set the max retry counter to 1 and run an overnight test to see what happens.
After running with this configuration for about 36 hours, I haven't seen any timing jumps. Either this configuration eliminates the error, or it makes it significantly less likely to occur.
Tim Woodford
Powered by blists - more mailing lists