From: Nix
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:16:26 +0100
> I plan to try out 2.6.29 (and back to 2.6.25 or thereabouts) tomorrow
> and see if it ever worked: if it did I'll bisect for it (rendered tricky
> by the out-of-tree e1000e driver, but doable: it would be easier if I
> had a clue where the e1000-d
On 1 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton said:
> Let's cc netdev on this.
>
> Presumably it is a post-2.6.29 regression.
I don't know: the earliest kernel this machine has ever run was
2.6.30rc5, and this failing 2.6.30rc7 kernel is the first 64-bit kernel
I've ever run on it. So currently I have one single
Let's cc netdev on this.
Presumably it is a post-2.6.29 regression.
On Sun, 31 May 2009 23:59:35 +0100 Nix wrote:
> I've just compiled a 64-bit kernel for a couple of quad-core Nehalems
> (one L5520, one Core i7) for the first time. Both were using 32-bit
> kernels happily before, and one (the
interesting question/observation...never noticed this...just making a guess:
when sending out.multiple CPUs may simultaneously want to send out
together...
but when coming back.per network card.all packet is already
serialized by the hardwareso since this driver is per-piece of
har
I've just compiled a 64-bit kernel for a couple of quad-core Nehalems
(one L5520, one Core i7) for the first time. Both were using 32-bit
kernels happily before, and one (the Core i7) is happy afterwards: but
the other sees two ksoftirqd threads saturating the CPU (well, half of
it, this being a 4-
