* Re: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline
2002-05-01 5:13 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-05-01 14:12 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-01 14:19 ` Steffen Persvold
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2002-05-01 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: J.A. Magallon, Lista Linux-Kernel
> I expect Intel's Q/A to green light their current driver. With a few
> patches it should be ready for 2.4.x soon.
>
> You can easily copy drivers/net/e100[0] into a 2.4.x kernel, it likely
> compiles without modification.
Will this be done in 2.4, or is it a 2.[56]-only driver?
--
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline
2002-05-01 5:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-01 14:12 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
@ 2002-05-01 14:19 ` Steffen Persvold
2002-05-01 23:46 ` [PATCH] intel eths for 2.4 [was: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline] J.A. Magallon
2002-05-06 10:19 ` Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline Jamie Lokier
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Persvold @ 2002-05-01 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: J.A. Magallon, Lista Linux-Kernel
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
> >Hi.
> >
> >Well, subject says it all. Which is the status/plans for inclussion
> >of those drivers in mainline kernel ? AFAIR, e1000 had been licensed,
> >but e100 was not clear yet.
> >
>
> e100 has been in 2.5.x for quite a long time. All license issues have
> similarly been resolved a long time ago.
>
> I expect Intel's Q/A to green light their current driver. With a few
> patches it should be ready for 2.4.x soon.
>
> You can easily copy drivers/net/e100[0] into a 2.4.x kernel, it likely
> compiles without modification.
>
Has the latency issues with e100 compared to eepro100 been resolved too ?
Last time I checked the e100 driver (version 1.8.38) had terrible high
latency on small messages even in a back-to-back configuration (both
machines using the same driver). As a test I used netperf's TCP_RR
benchmark (TCP roundtrip) :
Message size | eepro100 latency (usec) | e100 latency (usec)
--------------------------------------------------------------
16 108.985 114.116
24 110.940 116.679
32 114.129 119.608
48 118.614 125.507
64 124.341 1093.150
96 135.864 1102.190
128 147.177 1102.726
192 167.343 838.799
256 188.410 858.572
384 230.797 900.941
512 271.281 941.104
768 354.270 1024.753
1024 437.307 1108.231
1536 612.688 1293.912
2048 699.168 1334.828
3072 872.554 1670.787
4096 1032.183 1556.056
As you can see, with a TCP payload of 64 bytes the latency is quite high
with the e100 driver compared to the eepro100 driver. As a side note: it
didn't work well with the bonding module either (neither did the e1000
module).
Another funny thing is that the latency for the gigabit adapter (e1000)
is also higher than fast ethernet (eepro100) with small messages (<256
bytes) :
Message size | eepro100 latency (usec) | e1000 latency (usec)
--------------------------------------------------------------
16 108.985 177.138
24 110.940 177.370
32 114.129 177.523
48 118.614 178.189
64 124.341 178.769
96 135.864 179.669
128 147.177 180.517
192 167.343 183.339
256 188.410 184.552
384 230.797 188.929
512 271.281 191.787
768 354.270 198.745
1024 437.307 205.793
1536 612.688 240.772
2048 699.168 249.540
3072 872.554 282.348
4096 1032.183 299.220
Regards,
--
Steffen Persvold | Scalable Linux Systems | Try out the world's best
mailto:sp@scali.com | http://www.scali.com | performing MPI implementation:
Tel: (+47) 2262 8950 | Olaf Helsets vei 6 | - ScaMPI 1.13.8 -
Fax: (+47) 2262 8951 | N0621 Oslo, NORWAY | >320MBytes/s and <4uS latency
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [PATCH] intel eths for 2.4 [was: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline]
2002-05-01 5:13 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-01 14:12 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2002-05-01 14:19 ` Steffen Persvold
@ 2002-05-01 23:46 ` J.A. Magallon
2002-05-02 0:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-06 10:19 ` Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline Jamie Lokier
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: J.A. Magallon @ 2002-05-01 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Lista Linux-Kernel, Marcelo Tosatti
On 2002.05.01 Jeff Garzik wrote:
>J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
>>Hi.
>>
>>Well, subject says it all. Which is the status/plans for inclussion
>>of those drivers in mainline kernel ? AFAIR, e1000 had been licensed,
>>but e100 was not clear yet.
>>
>
>e100 has been in 2.5.x for quite a long time. All license issues have
>similarly been resolved a long time ago.
>
>I expect Intel's Q/A to green light their current driver. With a few
>patches it should be ready for 2.4.x soon.
>
>You can easily copy drivers/net/e100[0] into a 2.4.x kernel, it likely
>compiles without modification.
>
I did it, taking drivers from 2.5.12, and at least it compiles.
I have to try in the real box, but I don't think there were any problems,
at least the same than 2.5....
Marcelo, is there any chance to get this in next -pre or in .19 ?
Patches are big, so I put them at:
http://giga.cps.unizar.es/~magallon/linux/kernel/intel/e100-2.0.27-pre3.bz2
http://giga.cps.unizar.es/~magallon/linux/kernel/intel/e1000-4.2.8.bz2
(note, second gives some offsets and a fail if applied without the first
one...)
Some notes/questions:
- e100 has no help text.
- Versions are far newer than those listen in intel web pages:
* e100: Intel web is 1.8.35, the driver taken from 2.5.12 is 2.0.27-pre3
* e1000: Intel web is 4.1.7, driver in 2.5 is 4.2.8
Thanks for all the info.
--
J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you...
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.3 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.19-pre7-jam9 #2 SMP mié may 1 12:09:38 CEST 2002 i686
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] intel eths for 2.4 [was: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline]
2002-05-01 23:46 ` [PATCH] intel eths for 2.4 [was: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline] J.A. Magallon
@ 2002-05-02 0:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-02 0:16 ` J.A. Magallon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-05-02 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J.A. Magallon; +Cc: Lista Linux-Kernel, Marcelo Tosatti
J.A. Magallon wrote:
>On 2002.05.01 Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>I expect Intel's Q/A to green light their current driver. With a few
>>patches it should be ready for 2.4.x soon.
>>
>I did it, taking drivers from 2.5.12, and at least it compiles.
>I have to try in the real box, but I don't think there were any problems,
>at least the same than 2.5....
>
>Marcelo, is there any chance to get this in next -pre or in .19 ?
>
When they are suitable for Marcelo, I'm going to send them to Marcelo.
As I wrote in the quoted message, they need some more patches, and I'm
also interested in feedback from Intel Q/A (which is scheduled for
sometime this week).
If you are interesting in maintaining 2.4.x patches for a short time, go
for it. But I would rather not have a almost-ready e100 go to Marcelo
and get released in 2.4.19 in incomplete form. It's out there, it's
public, let's leave at that for a little while.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] intel eths for 2.4 [was: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline]
2002-05-02 0:04 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-05-02 0:16 ` J.A. Magallon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: J.A. Magallon @ 2002-05-02 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: J.A. Magallon, Lista Linux-Kernel, Marcelo Tosatti
On 2002.05.02 Jeff Garzik wrote:
>J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
>>On 2002.05.01 Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>>>I expect Intel's Q/A to green light their current driver. With a few
>>>patches it should be ready for 2.4.x soon.
>>>
>
>>I did it, taking drivers from 2.5.12, and at least it compiles.
>>I have to try in the real box, but I don't think there were any problems,
>>at least the same than 2.5....
>>
>>Marcelo, is there any chance to get this in next -pre or in .19 ?
>>
>
>When they are suitable for Marcelo, I'm going to send them to Marcelo.
>
>As I wrote in the quoted message, they need some more patches, and I'm
>also interested in feedback from Intel Q/A (which is scheduled for
>sometime this week).
>
Oops, sorry, I misunderstood something.
>If you are interesting in maintaining 2.4.x patches for a short time, go
>for it. But I would rather not have a almost-ready e100 go to Marcelo
>and get released in 2.4.19 in incomplete form. It's out there, it's
>public, let's leave at that for a little while.
>
OK, just forget all about -pre and .19.
If somebody wants to try them, look at one other post about -jam9.
It is the same story, I need them for some new boxen (e1000) and I prefer
to have all in the same tree than apart, so took those from 2.5
instead of Intel's.
--
J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you...
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.3 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.19-pre7-jam9 #2 SMP mié may 1 12:09:38 CEST 2002 i686
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline
2002-05-01 5:13 ` Jeff Garzik
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-05-01 23:46 ` [PATCH] intel eths for 2.4 [was: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline] J.A. Magallon
@ 2002-05-06 10:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-05-06 22:25 ` J.A. Magallon
3 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jamie Lokier @ 2002-05-06 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: J.A. Magallon, Lista Linux-Kernel
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> You can easily copy drivers/net/e100[0] into a 2.4.x kernel, it likely
> compiles without modification.
It does, except that you need to
#define cpu_relax() rep_nop()
or something very similar.
Fwiw, the e100 driver from 2.5, running on 2.4, can forward at a
somewhat higher packet rate than the e100 which Red Hat 7.2 provides
with 2.4...
-- Jamie
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline
2002-05-06 10:19 ` Plan for e100-e1000 in mainline Jamie Lokier
@ 2002-05-06 22:25 ` J.A. Magallon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: J.A. Magallon @ 2002-05-06 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jamie Lokier; +Cc: Lista Linux-Kernel
On 2002.05.06 Jamie Lokier wrote:
>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> You can easily copy drivers/net/e100[0] into a 2.4.x kernel, it likely
>> compiles without modification.
>
>It does, except that you need to
> #define cpu_relax() rep_nop()
>or something very similar.
>
It is already defined in processor.h (2.4.19-pre8). They build fine for me.
--
J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you...
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.3 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.19-pre8-jam1 #1 SMP dom may 5 23:46:04 CEST 2002 i686
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread