From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: 2.6.6 e1000 NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out+ delay scheduler Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:29:19 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <40D71AEF.8030006@dgreaves.com> References: <40CDD68C.8070509@dgreaves.com> <20040615155111.26d6b809@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <40D0280B.2030308@dgreaves.com> <40D2B114.5020201@dgreaves.com> <1087836178.20902.23.camel@tubarao> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jens Laas , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@oss.sgi.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com Return-path: To: tharbaugh@lnxi.com In-Reply-To: <1087836178.20902.23.camel@tubarao> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Thayne Harbaugh wrote: >On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 03:08, David Greaves wrote: > > > >>Jens Laas wrote: >> >> >>>We have tried different versions of e1000 without luck. >>> >>> >>Me too, 3 cards. >>(did I mention I have 2 machines with very similar specs (AMD/VIAKT600) >>and the other one works - actually, to be accurate, hasn't yet failed >>but hasn't yet run at full speed - and it has a higher CPU speed) >> >> > >What do you mean by, ". . . hasn't yet run at full speed - and it has a >higher CPU speed . . ." ? Does this mean that you can't get the card to >have a reasonable throughput (~900Mbps)? > > > It sounded reasonable when I wrote it :) I have 2 machines I can easily test with (wired back to back) Machine 1 has an AMD3000+ CPU, machine 2 has an AMD3200+ cpu (maybe not relevant - maybe important if it's timing related?) Machine one stalls within a few kb. Machine two has shown no signs of failure yet. However the other machine has not been stressed at all so it has 'not yet run at full speed' - not surprising since it has no friends with working gigabit cards :) David PS I tried some experiments this weekend with a third machine but I got nasty kernel oopses on the second (supposedly good) whenever I did ifconfig eth1 mtu 9000 and I've not had time to get any proper results or a minimal failure yet. simply issuing ifconfig eth1 mtu 9000 on the second machine gave me this: Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: printk: 1 messages suppressed. Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20 Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [__alloc_pages+728/848] __alloc_pages+0x2d8/0x350 Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [__get_free_pages+37/64] __get_free_pages+0x25/0x40 Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [kmem_getpages+32/176] kmem_getpages+0x20/0xb0 Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [cache_grow+166/512] cache_grow+0xa6/0x200 Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [cache_alloc_refill+342/544] cache_alloc_refill+0x156/0x220 Jun 18 16:33:08 haze kernel: [__kmalloc+116/128] __kmalloc+0x74/0x80 ... I'll report more fully when I can produce something consistent.