Nguyen, Khanh D (IS) wrote:
> Jesse/Emil,
>
> Just wonder if you have any news regarding to e1000e driver on our
> platform. BTW, we just test the driver e1000e with the same kernel
> 2.4.37-1 on laptop Compaq 8510p with Intel 82566MM chip and encounter
> similar problem. You mention that "Unkno
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Lal wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Brandeburg, Jesse
> wrote:
> > Peter, you're correct, however the tx queue interface is protected by
> > locks (qdisc lock, netdev lock) in the stack. And newer kernel
> > versions of e1000 don't even have the tx_ring lock any
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Lal wrote:
> I am using 7.3.20-k2-NAPI version of e1000 driver on Linux 2.6.21
>
> On a moderate traffic rx_no_buffer_count remains constant, but on
> heavy traffic rx_no_buffer_count keeps increasing.
>
> rx_no_buffer_count: 4094038
> rx_no_buffer_count: 4094038
>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Lal wrote:
> I am using 7.3.20-k2-NAPI version of e1000 driver on Linux 2.6.21
>
> On a moderate traffic rx_no_buffer_count remains constant, but on
> heavy traffic rx_no_buffer_count keeps increasing.
>
> rx_no_buffer_count: 4094038
> rx_no_buffer_count: 40
I am using 7.3.20-k2-NAPI version of e1000 driver on Linux 2.6.21
On a moderate traffic rx_no_buffer_count remains constant, but on
heavy traffic rx_no_buffer_count keeps increasing.
rx_no_buffer_count: 4094038
rx_no_buffer_count: 4094038
rx_no_buffer_count: 4094038
rx_no_buff
On Tuesday 02 June 2009, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:24:12PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > The whole thing has been somewhat low-priority indeed
> > given the probable age of some non-MII contenders. OTOH it would be quite
> > sad (and locally problematic) to see suppo
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Brandeburg, Jesse
wrote:
> Peter, you're correct, however the tx queue interface is protected by locks
> (qdisc lock, netdev lock) in the stack. And newer kernel versions of e1000
> don't even have the tx_ring lock any more (in the driver).
>
> On the receive sid
