From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: oops/warning report for the week of November 26, 2008 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:32:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20081128093217.3888fb46@linux.intel.com> References: <492DD792.6080302@linux.intel.com> <20081128111827.79b12739@osprey.hogchain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NetDev To: Jay Cliburn Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:41802 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751491AbYK1RbN (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:31:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081128111827.79b12739@osprey.hogchain.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:18:27 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote: > [trimmed the cc list down to netdev only] > > > Rank 12: dev_watchdog(atl1) (oops) > > Reported 56 times (109 total reports) > > This oops was last seen in version 2.6.27.5, and first seen > > in 2.6.26.6. More info: > > http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek.php?search=dev_watchdog(atl1) > > The tx timeout reports at kerneloops.org appear to be happening on a > startling variety of network drivers (startling to me, anyway): r8169, > atl1, atl2, sis900, cdc_ether, orinoco_cs, tg3, ne2k-pci, via-rhine, > 8139too, ath_pci, e1000, gl620a, sky2, hso, fealnx, forcedeth; > probably others, but I quit looking. to be specific in counts, the data I have so far is: count | guilty -------+---------------------------- 1599 | dev_watchdog(sis900) 1501 | dev_watchdog(r8169) 280 | dev_watchdog(via-rhine) 264 | dev_watchdog(cdc_ether) 213 | dev_watchdog(usbnet) 192 | dev_watchdog(8139too) 164 | dev_watchdog(8390) 158 | dev_watchdog(via_rhine) 129 | dev_watchdog(ne2k-pci) 122 | dev_watchdog(atl1) 102 | dev_watchdog(atl2) 101 | dev_watchdog(orinoco) and then a long tail of sub-100, omitted to keep this mail not too long; if anyone wants data on his/her driver not in the list, let me know. (please don't read too much in the word "guilty"; it's just the name of the column in the kerneloops.org database used for identifing which function was the prime suspect of a backtrace) > > Is it correct to assume all these drivers are showing symptoms of the > poor timeout handling you mentioned in your r8169 comment, or is the > occasional tx timeout to be expected, and the leaders in this category > (r8169, sis900, atl1) are the only ones suffering from deficient > timeout handling? For me, sis900 and r8169 stand out; if you look at the data in the table above, both of these are an order of magnitude more frequent than the rest of the pack. ATL1 isn't doing all that bad in this regard, although your driver is still a little higher than other popular cards like tg3, e1000, e1000e etc. (those are all sub-50). -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org