On tor, 2007-06-21 at 21:13 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:45:25 +0200 > Ian Kumlien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On tor, 2007-06-21 at 18:57 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > Redirected of LKML, netdev is the proper list. > > > > Thanks =) > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:51:32 +0200 > > > Ian Kumlien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > recently have started to see this in my dmesg: > > > > > > > > NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out > > > > sky2 eth0: tx timeout > > > > sky2 eth0: transmit ring 449 .. 408 report=449 done=449 > > > > sky2 eth0: disabling interface > > > > sky2 eth0: enabling interface > > > > sky2 eth0: ram buffer 48K > > > > sky2 eth0: Link is up at 1000 Mbps, full duplex, flow control rx > > > > > > > > I'm not using MSI since it seems to have caused problems in the past. > > > > > > > > I run with a 9k mtu > > > > > > > > sky2 eth0: transmit ring 18 .. 489 report=18 done=18 > > > > ---- I assume ring max is 512 (ie 1-512) since: > > > > Ring parameters for eth0: > > > > Current hardware settings: > > > > RX: 168 > > > > RX Mini: 0 > > > > RX Jumbo: 0 > > > > TX: 511 > > > > > > > > And 489 + 41 - 18 = 512 > > > > > > > > sky2 eth0: transmit ring 197 .. 156 report=197 done=197 > > > > sky2 eth0: transmit ring 480 .. 439 report=480 done=480 > > > > sky2 eth0: transmit ring 413 .. 372 report=413 done=413 > > > > sky2 eth0: transmit ring 320 .. 279 report=320 done=320 > > > > > > > > Else, they are all off by 41. > > > > > > > > Is this a known bug? > > > no > > > > Damn =P > > > > > > Comments? ideas? > > > > > > > which chip version. probably Yukon EC that seems to be the only one > > > that does gigabit with Ram buffer. > > > > sky2 0000:02:00.0: v1.14 addr 0xdbffc000 irq 18 Yukon-EC (0xb6) rev 2 > > > > > Does it work alright if you set transmit ring size smaller with ethtool? > > > There might be an off-by-one bug in the worst case calculations about > > > list element usage. > > > > I tried this... but not with a specific size, i think i did 480, and yes > > it timed out... any ideas on a more educated value? > > > > -- > > Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net > > Also try setting the idle_timeout module parameter to something link 10 (ms). > It will fix problems with lost interrupts.
I have changed it now, and i'm leaving it running... One interesting bit is that if i lowered from 511 to 510, The magic number was 42 not 41. -- Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
