Sorry, I noted on the earlier post I only did a single reply, rather
than a reply-all.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Ronciak, John wrote:
> We have some ideas and are working on a patch for you to try. Since we won't
> really be able to test it can you do that if we get it to you? Do you kno
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Ronciak, John wrote:
> OK so a couple of thing kind of stand out. What interface is the e1000 on?
> eth0? That's not being called out or you filtered it out from the dmesg.
> Early on eth2 is the e1000 interface but later it's one of the Gianfar
> interfaces.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Ronciak, John wrote:
> I agree with Jesse but this driver has been in the field for a very long time
> with no reports like this coming to us. Can you send us the dmesg when this
> is happening? I want to see if there are messages from the driver like if
> the
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr
wrote:
> What about the pre-emption behavior of the kernel? Namely Processor type
> and Features -> Preemption Model. Are you using no preemption, or forced
> preemption?
Ok. I've done testing. Yes, we were building with PREEMPT_FULL.
I'v
On 6/6/13, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
> What about the pre-emption behavior of the kernel? Namely Processor
> type and Features -> Preemption Model. Are you using no preemption, or
> forced preemption?
It is PREEMPT_FULL. I'll turn it off and give it a spin.
Thanks,
Pete
---
Quick followup. What I meant by "not sending much" is the adapter, not
the network. The network is very busy. However, there is hardly any
outgoing traffic from the box.
On 6/5/13, Peter LaDow wrote:
> On 6/5/13, Ronciak, John wrote:
>> So I have a couple of questions. Does
On 6/5/13, Ronciak, John wrote:
> So I have a couple of questions. Does this happen with a non-preemptive
> kernel? I understand that you probably need to use a preemptive kernel but
> for testing purposes it would be good to know. We don't always test with
> preemptive kernels.
Hmmm... If you
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Peter LaDow wrote:
> After some more digging, I'm wondering if this is indeed a timing
> issue. Is there a problem with bringing up an interface too soon
> after taking it down? If I change my loop to use a 30 second delay
> between interface br
ry helpful.
Thanks,
Pete
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Peter LaDow wrote:
> We are running a PPC system with an 82540EP that is causing kernel
> panics when there is heavy traffic and the interface is brought up
> and/or down (we aren't sure which yet).
>
> We are running 3.0
We are running a PPC system with an 82540EP that is causing kernel
panics when there is heavy traffic and the interface is brought up
and/or down (we aren't sure which yet).
We are running 3.0.57-rt82, but we can re-create this issue reliably
with 3.0.80 and 3.0.80-rt109 with the base version inc
10 matches
Mail list logo
