Just for guys who may arrive here after searching:
1.there's kernel bug in intel 82574L e1000e driver on centos 6(MSI/MSI-X
interrupts issue), we can resolve this by install kmod-e1000e package from
ELrepo.org and later add pcie_aspm=off e1000e.IntMode=1,1
e1000e.InterruptThrottleRate=1,1 a
On Friday, March 23, 2012 2:09:29 pm Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 3/20/2012 2:57 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> TX when link becomes active. I've also updated it to fix resume for em
> >>> and igb to DTRT when buf_ring is used, and to not include old-style
start
> >>> routines at all when using multiq.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 3/20/2012 2:57 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
TX when link becomes active. I've also updated it to fix resume for em
and igb to DTRT when buf_ring is used, and to not include old-style start
routines at all when using multiq. It i
On 3/20/2012 2:57 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> TX when link becomes active. I've also updated it to fix resume for em
>>> and igb to DTRT when buf_ring is used, and to not include old-style start
>>> routines at all when using multiq. It is at
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/e1000_txeof2.p
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:45:32 pm Jason Wolfe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:47:07 am Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> >> On 3/11/2012 5:31 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >> > Are you able to post the patch here?
> >> > Maybe Jack can look at w
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:47:07 am Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
>> On 3/11/2012 5:31 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > Are you able to post the patch here?
>> > Maybe Jack can look at what's going on and apply it to the latest
>> > intel ethernet drive
Its looking like I will be able to provide him with some hardware.
Cheers,
Jack
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 11:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Can someone please just send me some recent em/igb hardware? I'll sit
> > down and find ways to break things an
On 3/16/2012 11:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Can someone please just send me some recent em/igb hardware? I'll sit
> down and find ways to break things and help Jack fix them.
>
> I've been knee deep in this crap with ath(4) so I'm well versed now in
> the art of "making your NIC and network stack
Здравствуйте, Adrian.
Вы писали 16 марта 2012 г., 17:52:26:
AC> Can someone please just send me some recent em/igb hardware? I'll sit
AC> down and find ways to break things and help Jack fix them.
AC> I've been knee deep in this crap with ath(4) so I'm well versed now in
AC> the art of "making y
Can someone please just send me some recent em/igb hardware? I'll sit
down and find ways to break things and help Jack fix them.
I've been knee deep in this crap with ath(4) so I'm well versed now in
the art of "making your NIC and network stack not angry."
Adrian
__
On Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:41:09 pm Sean Bruno wrote:
>
> >
> > Hmm, so I have yet to test this, but I found several bugs related to
transmit
> > in em(4) and igb(4) recently just reading the code. (Mostly unnecessary
> > scheduling of tasks for transmit.) I've included your change of
res
>
> Hmm, so I have yet to test this, but I found several bugs related to transmit
> in em(4) and igb(4) recently just reading the code. (Mostly unnecessary
> scheduling of tasks for transmit.) I've included your change of restarting
> TX when link becomes active. I've also updated it to fix r
On Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:47:07 am Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> On 3/11/2012 5:31 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Are you able to post the patch here?
> > Maybe Jack can look at what's going on and apply it to the latest
> > intel ethernet driver.
> >
> >
> > Adrian
> >
>
> Below is the patch for if_em.c
On 3/11/2012 5:31 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Are you able to post the patch here?
Maybe Jack can look at what's going on and apply it to the latest
intel ethernet driver.
Adrian
Below is the patch for if_em.c (7.2.3). It simply checks driver's
queue status when the link state changes (inactive
On 10 March 2012 02:33, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> Dear Jason
>
> With a link_irq of 4, I still guess your problem is snd_buf filling up
> during
> a temporary link_loss (see:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2011-November/030424.html).
>
> I use a patched version of e1000 which addre
Dear Jason
With a link_irq of 4, I still guess your problem is snd_buf filling up during
a temporary link_loss (see:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2011-November/030424.html).
I use a patched version of e1000 which addresses this issue and
works good for me but it is based on 7.
h 07, 2012 12:58 PM
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Intel 82574L interface wedging - em7.3.2/8.2-STABLE
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jason Wolfe wrote:
> So since the 7.3.0/7.3.2 code released out of the "Intel 82574L
> interface wedging on em 7.1.9/7.2.3 when MSIX enable
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jason Wolfe wrote:
> So since the 7.3.0/7.3.2 code released out of the "Intel 82574L
> interface wedging on em 7.1.9/7.2.3 when MSIX enabled" thread I've
> been having some good results in 8.2-STABLE, and 'wedges' are much
> less common. I am however still seeing
So since the 7.3.0/7.3.2 code released out of the "Intel 82574L
interface wedging on em 7.1.9/7.2.3 when MSIX enabled" thread I've
been having some good results in 8.2-STABLE, and 'wedges' are much
less common. I am however still seeing them rarely, using some fuzzy
math based on uptime on the new
19 matches
Mail list logo