[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277719251.4235.306.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:00:51 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Mitchell Erblich <erblichs@...thlink.net>
Cc: James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: b44: Reset due to FIFO overflow.
Le lundi 28 juin 2010 à 02:33 -0700, Mitchell Erblich a écrit :
>
> Why wouldn't the ability to recv frames after a Recv FIFO overflow
> indicate that a reset is NOT required?
>
Do you have datasheets of all b44 chips ? I dont.
> Thus, should't it be an indication of congestion if associated with a single
> flow and either speed up (reduce latency to service) the recv side or
> slow down the xmit side?
I dont understand what you are saying. xmit is not the problem here.
And driver is flow agnostic. Its well before network stack.
Problem is we receive a spike of RX network frames (possibly UDP or some
other RX only trafic), and chip raises an RX fifo overflow _error_
indication.
Some hardware are buggy enough that such error indication is fatal and
_require_ hardware reset. Thats life. I suspect b44 driver doing a full
reset is not a random guess from driver author, but to avoid a complete
NIC lockup.
Refs:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7696
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216338
commit 5fc7d61aee1a7f7d3448f8fbccaa93371ebeecb0
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists