> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-boun...@lists.osuosl.org] On > Behalf Of Woodford, Timothy W. > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 7:41 AM > To: Woodford, Timothy W. <timothy.woodf...@jhuapl.edu>; Avargil, > Raanan <raanan.avar...@intel.com>; Jarod Wilson <ja...@redhat.com>; > linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Hall, Christopher S > <christopher.s.h...@intel.com> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out > systim sanitization > > >>> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have > occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the > sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per > suggestion > from Jesse Brandeburg. > >>> > >>> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier than > simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as needed. > >>> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that > could/should be converted similarly. > >> > >> Looks ok to me. > >> Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter > (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)? > >> This counter is set to 50. > >> Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) > and see what happens? > > I'll set the max retry counter to 1 and run an overnight test to see what > happens. > > After running with this configuration for about 36 hours, I haven't seen any > timing jumps. Either this configuration eliminates the error, or it makes it > significantly less likely to occur. > > Tim Woodford
Feel free to throw a Tested-by: on it if you like. Not a big deal either way, I managed to get enough cycles in on it I'm pretty happy with it as well. > _______________________________________________ > Intel-wired-lan mailing list > intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org > http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
