* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Any ideas about what i should try next?
> >
> > have you tried e1000e?
>
> will try it.
ok, i tried it now, and there's good news: the latency problem seems
largely fixed by e1000e. (yay!)
with e1000 i got these anomalous latencies:
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=1000 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.882 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=1007 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.522 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=1003 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.381 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=1010 ms
with e1000e i get:
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.212 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.372 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.815 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.961 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.201 ms
64 bytes from europe (10.0.1.15): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.788 ms
TCP latencies are fine too - ssh feels snappy again.
it still does not have nearly as good latencies as say forcedeth though:
64 bytes from mercury (10.0.1.13): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.076 ms
64 bytes from mercury (10.0.1.13): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.085 ms
64 bytes from mercury (10.0.1.13): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.045 ms
64 bytes from mercury (10.0.1.13): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.053 ms
that's 10 times better packet latencies.
and even an ancient Realtek RTL-8139 over 10 megabit Ethernet (!) has
better latencies than the e1000e over 1000 megabit:
64 bytes from pluto (10.0.1.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.309 ms
64 bytes from pluto (10.0.1.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.333 ms
64 bytes from pluto (10.0.1.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.329 ms
64 bytes from pluto (10.0.1.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.311 ms
64 bytes from pluto (10.0.1.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.302 ms
is it done intentionally perhaps? I dont think it makes much sense to
delay rx/tx processing on a completely idle box for such a long time.
The options i used are:
CONFIG_E1000=y
CONFIG_E1000_NAPI=y
# CONFIG_E1000_DISABLE_PACKET_SPLIT is not set
CONFIG_E1000E=y
CONFIG_E1000E_ENABLED=y
> But even it if solves the problem it's a nasty complication: given how
> many times i have to bisect back into the times when there was only
> e1000 around, how do i handle the transition? I have automated
> bisection tools, etc. and i bisect very frequently.
one possibility would be to change 'make oldconfig' to keep old options
around - as long as they look "unknown" to a particular kernel. It would
list them in some special "unknown options" section near the end of the
.config or so. That way the E1000E=y setting could survive a bisection
run which dives down into older kernel versions. (obviously old kernels
wont grow this capability magically, so if we do such a change we'll
have to wait years for it all to trickle through.)
and eventually E1000E could become the default.
Ingo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
