Re: [PATCH] sungem: PHY updates pause fixes

2007-01-04 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 1/4/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've applied that patch, thanks. David, I suppose you've applied the locking patch as well... -- Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: [PATCH] sungem: PHY updates pause fixes

2007-01-04 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 1/4/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 21:06:48 +0100 On 1/4/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've applied that patch, thanks. David, I suppose you've applied the locking patch as well... No, not yet. Your

Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

2006-12-11 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 12/12/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Anyways, Eric your changes look fine as far as I can tell, can you give them a really good testing on some SMP boxes? Unfortunately I can't, I don't have the hardware (only an old ibook here). -- Eric - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

2006-12-11 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 12/12/06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 06:33 +0100, Eric Lemoine wrote: On 12/12/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Anyways, Eric your changes look fine as far as I can tell, can you give them a really good testing on some SMP boxes

Re: [PATCH 10/10] chelesio: transmit locking (plus bug fix).

2006-12-03 Thread Eric Lemoine
Stephen, On 12/2/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If transmit lock is contended on, then push return code back and retry at higher level. Looking at qdisc_restart, it seems to me that the NETDEV_TX_LOCKED return code must only be used if the device features LLTX. With your

Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

2006-11-29 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/29/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:57:24 +1100 This looks mostly fine. I was thinking about the lockless stuff, and I wonder if there is a clever way you can get it back down to one PIO on the

Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

2006-11-29 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/28/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:54:40 +0100 On 11/14/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:28:42 +0100 because it makes it explicit

Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

2006-11-13 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/14/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:11:49 +0100 +#if GEM_INTERRUPT_LOCKLESS + +/* Bitmask representing the interrupt conditions that we clear using GREG_IACK. + * We clear all the top-level interrupt conditions

Re: [patch sungem] improved locking

2006-11-10 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/10/06, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please use GREG_STAT_* instead of magic constants for the interrupt mask and ACK register writes. In fact, there are some questionable values you use, in particular this one: +static inline void gem_ack_int(struct gem *gp) +{ +

tg3_close question

2006-11-09 Thread Eric Lemoine
Hi Instead of tg3_netif_stop() tg3_close() uses netif_stop_queue() to stop xmit. This doesn't seem right to me. E.g. another CPU in tg3_tx() could do netif_wake_queue() just after tg3_close() did netif_stop_queue(). Isn't a bug? Thanks, -- Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: tg3_close question

2006-11-09 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/9/06, Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Chan wrote: Eric Lemoine wrote: Instead of tg3_netif_stop() tg3_close() uses netif_stop_queue() to stop xmit. This doesn't seem right to me. E.g. another CPU in tg3_tx() could do netif_wake_queue() just after tg3_close() did

Re: tg3_close question

2006-11-09 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/9/06, Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/9/06, Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Chan wrote: Eric Lemoine wrote: Instead of tg3_netif_stop() tg3_close() uses netif_stop_queue() to stop xmit. This doesn't seem right to me. E.g. another CPU in tg3_tx

Re: tg3_close question

2006-11-09 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/9/06, Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Lemoine wrote: On 11/9/06, Michael Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it is not possible for tg3_poll() - tg3_tx() to run any more after tg3_close() is called. But, while tg3_close() starts executing, an interrupt may come

[patch sungem] improved locking

2006-11-09 Thread Eric Lemoine
in the final patch. Patch applies to current git net-2.6. Please review, and test if possible. Thanks, Signed-ff-by: Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Eric sungem-locking.patch Description: Binary data

Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-06 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:34 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger

Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-06 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:55:20 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/6/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:11:34 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger

[sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-05 Thread Eric Lemoine
Hi! Some (long) time ago benh wrote a blaming comment in sungem.c about that driver's locking strategy. That comment basically says that we probably don't need two spinlocks. I agree! Proposal: Today's sungem effectively uses two spinlock's: lock and tx_lock. tx_lock is held by the xmit

Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-05 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/5/06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 14:00 +0100, Eric Lemoine wrote: Hi! Some (long) time ago benh wrote a blaming comment in sungem.c about that driver's locking strategy. That comment basically says that we probably don't need two spinlocks

Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-05 Thread Eric Lemoine
You could also just use net_tx_lock() now. You mean netif_tx_lock()? Thanks for letting me know about that function. Yes, I may need it. tg3 and bnx2 use it to wake up the transmit queue: if (unlikely(netif_queue_stopped(tp-dev) (tg3_tx_avail(tp)

Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-05 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could also just use net_tx_lock() now. You mean netif_tx_lock()? Thanks for letting me know about that function. Yes, I may need it. tg3 and bnx2 use

Re: [sungem] proposal for a new locking strategy

2006-11-05 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:52:45 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/5/06, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:33 +0100 Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could also just use

Re: [PATCH] Fix netpoll bug in Sun GEM Ether driver

2005-08-28 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 8/27/05, Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/27/05, Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/26/05, Geoff Levand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This fixes a major bug in the Sun GEM Ether driver's netpoll implementation. When both polled and interrupt driven i/o are used

Re: [PATCH] Fix netpoll bug in Sun GEM Ether driver

2005-08-27 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 8/26/05, Geoff Levand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This fixes a major bug in the Sun GEM Ether driver's netpoll implementation. When both polled and interrupt driven i/o are used simultaneously, for example when using kgdb over Ether with active NFS mounts, a condition easily arises where the

Re: [PATCH] Fix netpoll bug in Sun GEM Ether driver

2005-08-27 Thread Eric Lemoine
On 8/27/05, Eric Lemoine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/26/05, Geoff Levand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This fixes a major bug in the Sun GEM Ether driver's netpoll implementation. When both polled and interrupt driven i/o are used simultaneously, for example when using kgdb over Ether