From: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@daemonizer.de>
To: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano@broadcom.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 23:46:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705272346.19760.maxi@daemonizer.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705272246.16960.mb@bu3sch.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2664 bytes --]
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 22:36:39 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > When I ran 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 without any debugging tools just in
> > normal use I didn't notice any problems. It did work fine as I would
> > expect it. I think the wget and ping tests here are as they should be.
> >
> > With 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 I noticed that connections seem to be slower. The
> > ping test does confirm this, because here response times are very high.
> > As far as I can remember the wget download rate was a bit slower than
> > 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 till it stalled.
> > I would expect it to be someting like the other two kernels. The two
> > problems I see are the high ping times and the fact that the card stopped
> > working.
> >
> > I don't know why the iperf results are so different from my personal
> > experience. I guess the fact that I get so bad results with 2.6.21.1 and
> > 2.6.22-rc3 is that iperf does something that causes the system to be
> > extremely slow and thus degrading performance. This could be a bug
> > somewhere in the b44 driver of 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-RC3 that has
> > unintended been fixed by the ssb switch, but that's only a roughly guess.
>
> Ok. I guess (Yes I do :D) that there is an IRQ storm or something like
> that, because you say that your system is becoming very slow and
> unresponsive. It sounds like an IRQ is not ACKed correctly and so keeps
> triggering and stalling the system. I'll take a look at a few diffs...
> Do you see significant differences in the "hi" and/or "si" times in top?
> Do you see a significant difference in the /proc/interrupts count. For
> example that the kernel that works worse generates 10 times the IRQ count
> for the same amount of data.
ok, here are the results:
Using 2.6.22-rc3 I get lot's of hi during TX and lots of hi and si during RX.
Using 2.6.22-rc3-mm1 hi and si are significantly lower.
It's difficult to give absolute numbers, because top refreshes very slow, but
with 2.6.22-rc3 hi is about 30% during TX and RX and si is 0% during TX and
50% during RX. With Using 2.6.22-rc3-mm1 hi is 0% during TX and 0.3% during
RX and si is 10% during TX and 0% during RX.
When I do the same test on both kernels I get about 10 times (yes, it's really
about ten times like in your example) more interrupts with 2.6.22-rc3 than
with 2.6.22-rc3-mm1.
An additional thing I noticed it that it's not the BCM4401 card that stops
working but my e100 card. If I take the e100 card down and up again the
connection is working again, so the BCM4401 doesn't have a "stops working"
bug for me.
Maxi
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
To: Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-wireless"
<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Stephen Hemminger
<shemminger-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme-f8uhVLnGfZaxAyOMLChx1axOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 23:46:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705272346.19760.maxi@daemonizer.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705272246.16960.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2664 bytes --]
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 22:36:39 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > When I ran 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 without any debugging tools just in
> > normal use I didn't notice any problems. It did work fine as I would
> > expect it. I think the wget and ping tests here are as they should be.
> >
> > With 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 I noticed that connections seem to be slower. The
> > ping test does confirm this, because here response times are very high.
> > As far as I can remember the wget download rate was a bit slower than
> > 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 till it stalled.
> > I would expect it to be someting like the other two kernels. The two
> > problems I see are the high ping times and the fact that the card stopped
> > working.
> >
> > I don't know why the iperf results are so different from my personal
> > experience. I guess the fact that I get so bad results with 2.6.21.1 and
> > 2.6.22-rc3 is that iperf does something that causes the system to be
> > extremely slow and thus degrading performance. This could be a bug
> > somewhere in the b44 driver of 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-RC3 that has
> > unintended been fixed by the ssb switch, but that's only a roughly guess.
>
> Ok. I guess (Yes I do :D) that there is an IRQ storm or something like
> that, because you say that your system is becoming very slow and
> unresponsive. It sounds like an IRQ is not ACKed correctly and so keeps
> triggering and stalling the system. I'll take a look at a few diffs...
> Do you see significant differences in the "hi" and/or "si" times in top?
> Do you see a significant difference in the /proc/interrupts count. For
> example that the kernel that works worse generates 10 times the IRQ count
> for the same amount of data.
ok, here are the results:
Using 2.6.22-rc3 I get lot's of hi during TX and lots of hi and si during RX.
Using 2.6.22-rc3-mm1 hi and si are significantly lower.
It's difficult to give absolute numbers, because top refreshes very slow, but
with 2.6.22-rc3 hi is about 30% during TX and RX and si is 0% during TX and
50% during RX. With Using 2.6.22-rc3-mm1 hi is 0% during TX and 0.3% during
RX and si is 10% during TX and 0% during RX.
When I do the same test on both kernels I get about 10 times (yes, it's really
about ten times like in your example) more interrupts with 2.6.22-rc3 than
with 2.6.22-rc3-mm1.
An additional thing I noticed it that it's not the BCM4401 card that stops
working but my e100 card. If I take the e100 card down and up again the
connection is working again, so the BCM4401 doesn't have a "stops working"
bug for me.
Maxi
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-27 21:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-26 0:24 b44: regression in 2.6.22 Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-26 3:51 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-26 17:01 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 19:25 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 19:25 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 19:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 19:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt [this message]
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:24 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 15:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 17:44 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 19:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 20:55 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 21:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-29 18:28 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 18:28 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-03 16:26 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:59 ` iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?) Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 17:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 19:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-04 19:47 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 20:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 20:52 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 20:52 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 10:49 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 14:14 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-30 10:45 ` Michael Buesch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-28 23:00 Uwe Bugla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705272346.19760.maxi@daemonizer.de \
--to=maxi@daemonizer.de \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zambrano@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.