2.2.18p18 eepro100 issues (packets per irq, shared irqs)
First of all I would like to say that 2.2.18p18 does not have the 'card reports no resources' messages when I saturate the 100mbit network anymore.
But I was wondering about two things:
I have a 815EE board, which has an onboard eepro100 and a pci eepro100. They share an irq, no matter if I'm using intels e100.o driver or the stock linux one. For performance reasons, can I make them each have a different irq? Doing it from ifconfig gives me a notsupported error, with either driver.
Also: VMSTAT output, comparing stock linux driver with intel. Heres the stock linux:
1 0 0 0 31836 67632 13240 0 0 0 0 24015 47215 20 15 65 1 0 0 0 31836 67632 13240 0 0 0 1 24016 47016 21 16 64
The card is recv'ng 24k packets per second, and seeing that many irqs. The intel driver does 6 per irq, and vmstat from that driver (not posted, but I remember what it was) shows 6 times less irq/sec and cs/sec. Even though, it appears the stock linux driver is supposed to do 20 things per irq? I am no kernel hacker...can I get the stock linux driver to do multiple packets per irq with some config settings?
Thanks,
Karl Pickett
(Posting from hotmail since I cant use my companies email address)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 4 lines
They share an irq, no matter if I'm using intels e100.o driver or the stock linux one. For performance reasons, can I make them each have a different irq? Doing it from ifconfig gives me a notsupported error, with either driver.
Under 2.2 no. Under 2.4 maybe
Quoted 2 lines
no kernel hacker...can I get the stock linux driver to do multiple packets per irq with some config settings?
We dont have sufficient docs to figure this out easily. Intel upload magic numbers to the card microcode
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
They share an irq, no matter if I'm using intels e100.o driver or the stock linux one. For performance reasons, can I make them each have a different irq? Doing it from ifconfig gives me a notsupported error, with either driver.
Under 2.2 no. Under 2.4 maybe
one question: using driver 1.11 of eepro, on a server with 1 network carte only, we have something really dirty in dmesg it writes IRQ 20 !? why all this folks ? ;)
the good news there is no more eth0 problems :)
Octave
IRQ to pin mappings:
IRQ0 -> 2
IRQ1 -> 1
IRQ3 -> 3
IRQ4 -> 4
IRQ5 -> 5
IRQ6 -> 6
IRQ7 -> 7
IRQ8 -> 8
IRQ9 -> 9
IRQ14 -> 14
IRQ16 -> 0
IRQ20 -> 4
IRQ24 -> 8
IRQ25 -> 9
eth0: OEM i82557/i82558 10/100 Ethernet at 0xf0002000, 00:E0:18:02:15:02, IRQ 20.
Board assembly 668081-002, Physical connectors present: RJ45 Primary interface chip i82555 PHY #1.
General self-test: passed.
Serial sub-system self-test: passed.
Internal registers self-test: passed.
ROM checksum self-test: passed (0x04f4518b).
Receiver lock-up workaround activated.
eepro100.c:v1.11 7/19/2000 Donald Becker <[email protected]>
http://www.scyld.com/network/eepro100.html
eth1: OEM i82557/i82558 10/100 Ethernet at 0xf0004000, 00:E0:18:02:15:02, IRQ 20. [...]
eth7: OEM i82557/i82558 10/100 Ethernet at 0xf0010000, 00:E0:18:02:15:02, IRQ 20.
Board assembly 668081-002, Physical connectors present: RJ45 Primary interface chip i82555 PHY #1.
General self-test: passed.
Serial sub-system self-test: passed.
Internal registers self-test: passed.
ROM checksum self-test: passed (0x04f4518b).
Receiver lock-up workaround activated.
eepro100.c:v1.11 7/19/2000 Donald Becker <[email protected]>
http://www.scyld.com/network/eepro100.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/