From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.30-rc4] r8169: avoid losing MSI interrupts Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20090825221903.GA13630@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <1250895567.23419.1.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org> <1250897657.23419.5.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org> <1250973787.3582.14.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org> <1251169150.4023.11.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org> <1251232848.9607.15.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Dillow , Michael Riepe , Michael Buesch , Rui Santos , Michael B??ker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com ([213.41.134.224]:50643 "EHLO electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753873AbZHYWO7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:14:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric W. Biederman : [...] > I am a bit curious about TxDescUnavail. Perhaps we had a temporary > memory shortage and that is what was screaming? I don't think we do > anything at all with that state. You are not alone, the driver completely ignores this bit. As far as I remember, the TxDescUnavail event mostly pops up when the driver makes an excessive use of TxPoll requests. > Perhaps the flaw here is simply not masking TxDescUnavail while we are > in NAPI mode ? Yes, it is worth trying. -- Ueimor