> On Jul 20, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Could you please test the following patch and let me know if it:
> 1) reduces the interrupt rate of the Other msi-x vector
> 2) avoids the link flaps
> or
> 3) logs some dmesg warnings of the form "Other interrupt with unhandled
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:44:55PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Could you please test the following patch and let me know if it:
> 1) reduces the interrupt rate of the Other msi-x vector
> 2) avoids the link flaps
> or
> 3) logs some dmesg warnings of the form "Other interrupt with unhandled [.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:27:09AM -0400, wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:44:55PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > Could you please test the following patch and let me know if it:
> > 1) reduces the interrupt rate of the Other msi-x vector
> > 2) avoids the link flaps
> > or
> > 3) logs some
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:44:55PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Could you please test the following patch and let me know if it:
> 1) reduces the interrupt rate of the Other msi-x vector
> 2) avoids the link flaps
> or
> 3) logs some dmesg warnings of the form "Other interrupt with unhandled [.
On 2017/07/20 10:00, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:07:47PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > Are you sure about this? In my testing, while triggering the overrun
> > with the msleep, I read ICR when entering e1000_msix_other() and RXO is
> > consistently set.
>
> I had thou
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:07:47PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Are you sure about this? In my testing, while triggering the overrun
> with the msleep, I read ICR when entering e1000_msix_other() and RXO is
> consistently set.
I had thousands of calls to e1000_msix_other where the only bit set
On 2017/07/19 10:19, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 04:14:35PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed analysis.
> >
> > Refering to the original discussion around this patch series, it seemed like
> > the IMS bit for a condition had to be set for the Other in
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 04:14:35PM -0700, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed analysis.
>
> Refering to the original discussion around this patch series, it seemed like
> the IMS bit for a condition had to be set for the Other interrupt to be raised
> for that condition.
>
> https:/
On 2017/07/18 10:21, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Commit 16ecba59bc333d6282ee057fb02339f77a880beb has apparently broken
> at least the 82574L under heavy load (as in load heavy enough to cause
> packet drops). In this case, when running in MSI-X mode, the Other
> Causes interrupt fires about 3000 tim
9 matches
Mail list logo
