From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felix Radensky Subject: Re: e100 "Ferguson" release Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:44:10 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <3F2FD0CA.1080403@allot.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Lg9l6CsjxHY6kAV0DHDKJw)" Cc: Ben Greear , Jeff Garzik , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: "Feldman, Scott" Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --Boundary_(ID_Lg9l6CsjxHY6kAV0DHDKJw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, Scott This change seems to fix the problem. Thanks a lot ! Felix. Feldman, Scott wrote: >>I've also noticed that the number of hard_start_xmit failures >>in e1000 has increased significantly in version 5.1.13-k1. In >>version 5.0.43-k1 the number of failures was much smaller. >> >> > >Interesting. Felix, would you undo the change[1] below in 5.1.13-k1 and >see what happens? With the change below, 5.1.13 would be more >aggressive on Tx cleanup, so we'll be quicker waking the queue than >before. > >-scott > > for(i = 0; i < E1000_MAX_INTR; i++) >- if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) && >+ if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) & > !e1000_clean_tx_irq(adapter)) > break; > >[1] Something still bothers me about this new form where we're mixing a >bit-wise operator with logical operands. Should this bother me? > > > --Boundary_(ID_Lg9l6CsjxHY6kAV0DHDKJw) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, Scott

This change seems to fix the problem.
Thanks a lot !

Felix.

Feldman, Scott wrote:

I've also noticed that the number of hard_start_xmit failures 
in e1000 has increased significantly in version 5.1.13-k1. In 
version 5.0.43-k1 the number of failures was much smaller.


Interesting.  Felix, would you undo the change[1] below in 5.1.13-k1 and
see what happens?  With the change below, 5.1.13 would be more
aggressive on Tx cleanup, so we'll be quicker waking the queue than
before. 

-scott

        for(i = 0; i < E1000_MAX_INTR; i++)
-               if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) &&
+               if(!e1000_clean_rx_irq(adapter) &
                   !e1000_clean_tx_irq(adapter))
                        break;

[1] Something still bothers me about this new form where we're mixing a
bit-wise operator with logical operands.  Should this bother me?

--Boundary_(ID_Lg9l6CsjxHY6kAV0DHDKJw)--