From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:53:21 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: tx_full v.s tx_free race fix in 8xx_io/enet.c? Message-ID: <20031205195321.GS912@stop.crashing.org> References: <000201c3ba73$63dba410$0a01a8c0@LUMENTIS02> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <000201c3ba73$63dba410$0a01a8c0@LUMENTIS02> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:32:04PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Something I find a bit odd is that I can run ping -s 1472 -f > > > > without problems, but if i "jump start" the ping with "ping > > -s 800 -f -l 8" > > I start to loose packages. Ifconfig shows no errors for both cases. > > Do you get the same? > > > > Jocke > > Found this problem. It is the backoff/retry logic thats > causing very long TX delays. If I reduce "retlim"(retry limit) from > 15 to 6, the system recovers from a large packet ping storm. > > Is it a bad idea to reduce the retry limit? I don't know, sorry. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/