On Feb 9, 2008 1:51 PM, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin Rogge wrote: > > On Saturday 09 February 2008 11:07:26 Martin Rogge wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am not so familiar with the various mailing lists and missed out on > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] the first time. Please cc me on any > >> replies. > >> > >> I am looking for help with either making the e1000e driver work on my > >> Thinkpad T60 or fixing the 1s latency issue with e1000. > >> > >> To be honest, I do not understand why the e1000e driver failed to recognize > >> the NIC when I tried. At least, I noticed the correct device ID is defined > >> in drivers/net/e1000e/hw.h: > >> > >> #define E1000_DEV_ID_82573L 0x109A > >> > >> Any help is appreciated. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >> > >> Subject: Re: e1000 1sec latency problem > >> Date: Thursday 07 February 2008 > >> From: Martin Rogge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >> > >> Pavel Machek wrote: > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems: > >> Hi, I have the same problem with my Thinkpad T60. > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ping arnold > >> PING arnold (192.168.158.6) 56(84) bytes of data. > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=49.7 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.438 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1000 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.970 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=885 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.484 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=529 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.02 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=149 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.549 ms > >> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.829 ms > >> > >> --- arnold ping statistics --- > >> 11 packets transmitted, 11 received, 0% packet loss, time 9999ms > >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.438/238.113/1000.967/365.279 ms, pipe 2 > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# uname -a > >> Linux zorro 2.6.24 #6 SMP PREEMPT Sun Feb 3 18:27:48 CET 2008 i686 Intel(R) > >> Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# lspci -vvv > > > > [stuff deleted] > > > >> Unfortunately the e1000e driver is not an option as it will not detect the > >> NIC: > >> > >> ----from dmesg with e1000 compiled in: > >> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-k2-NAPI > >> Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation. > >> ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:00.0[A] -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 > >> PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:02:00.0 to 64 > >> e1000: 0000:02:00.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1) > >> 00:15:58:c3:3a:71 > >> e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection > >> > >> ----from dmesg with e1000e compiled in: > >> e1000e: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - 0.2.0 > >> e1000e: Copyright (c) 1999-2007 Intel Corporation. > >> > >> Any pointers? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Just for the records, I googled the following solution for the Lenovo T60: > > > > (a) use the e1000 driver > > (b) if compiling as a module, add the following parameter to modprobe.conf: > > options e1000 RxIntDelay=5 > > (c) if compiling a static driver, use the following patch (based on 2.6.24): > > > > --- e1000_param.c.orig 2008-01-24 23:58:37.000000000 +0100 > > +++ e1000_param.c 2008-02-09 20:42:23.000000000 +0100 > > @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ > > * Valid Range: 0-65535 > > */ > > E1000_PARAM(RxIntDelay, "Receive Interrupt Delay"); > > -#define DEFAULT_RDTR 0 > > +#define DEFAULT_RDTR 5 > > #define MAX_RXDELAY 0xFFFF > > #define MIN_RXDELAY 0 > > > > After reboot, the average ping time is still factor 10 worse than it should > > be, but it stays below 2 ms (which is a remarkable improvement compared to > > 1000 ms). > > correct, this was a workaround which improved things for most people, but did > not > *fix* it. > > the real fix is to disable L1 ASPM alltogether at the cost of more power > consumption, which is what is in e1000e in 2.6.25-git.
e1000e doesn't recognize his NIC. Will you be adding this to the e1000 driver as well? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
