Re: [PATCH 2.6.30-rc4] r8169: avoid losing MSI interrupts

[Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@googlemail.com>]

Hi!

Michael Buesch wrote:

> Thanks a lot, Dave! This fixes the issue on my chip.

Yep, it's stable here as well. And even a little faster than pci=nomsi.
The only strangeness I observed is that the throughput (measured with
iperf and a single TCP connection) varies:

[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec    667 MBytes    559 Mbits/sec
[  3] 10.0-20.0 sec    803 MBytes    673 Mbits/sec
[  3] 20.0-30.0 sec    802 MBytes    673 Mbits/sec
[  3] 30.0-40.0 sec    714 MBytes    599 Mbits/sec
[  3] 40.0-50.0 sec    669 MBytes    561 Mbits/sec
[  3] 50.0-60.0 sec    791 MBytes    663 Mbits/sec
[  3]  0.0-60.0 sec  4.34 GBytes    622 Mbits/sec

In gkrellm, you can see that it actually alternates between two values.

With pci=nomsi (and without the patch) I get lower but more consistent
results:

[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[  3]  0.0-10.0 sec    511 MBytes    429 Mbits/sec
[  3] 10.0-20.0 sec    465 MBytes    390 Mbits/sec
[  3] 20.0-30.0 sec    481 MBytes    404 Mbits/sec
[  3] 30.0-40.0 sec    466 MBytes    391 Mbits/sec
[  3] 40.0-50.0 sec    465 MBytes    390 Mbits/sec
[  3] 50.0-60.0 sec    463 MBytes    389 Mbits/sec
[  3]  0.0-60.0 sec  2.78 GBytes    399 Mbits/sec

I suppose it's a side effect of the MSI acknowledgement loop. But who am
I to complain about higher average throughput? ;-)

> You can add my:
> 
> Tested-by: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>

Tested-by: Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@googlemail.com>

-- 
Michael "Tired" Riepe <michael.riepe@googlemail.com>
X-Tired: Each morning I get up I die a little