Em Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:00:02AM -0800, David Miller escreveu: > From: Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:51:55 +0100 > > > On Thursday 17 January 2008, David Miller wrote: > > > From: "Brandeburg, Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > We spent Wednesday trying to reproduce (without the patch) these issues > > > > without much luck, and have applied the patch cleanly and will continue > > > > testing it. Given the simplicity of the changes, and the community > > > > testing, I'll give my ack and we will continue testing. > > > > > > You need a slow CPU, and you need to make sure you do actually > > > trigger the TX limiting code there. > > > > Hmmm. Is a dual core Pentium D 3.20GHz considered slow these days? > > No of course :-) I guess it therefore depends upon the load > as well.
I saw it just once, yesterday: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# uname -r 2.6.24-rc5 e1000: eth0: e1000_clean_tx_irq: Detected Tx Unit Hang Tx Queue <0> TDH <58> TDT <8f> next_to_use <8f> next_to_clean <55> buffer_info[next_to_clean] time_stamp <105e973a9> next_to_watch <56> jiffies <105e97992> next_to_watch.status <1> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# on a lenovo T60W, core2duo machine (2GHz), when using it to stress test another machine, I was using netperf TCP_STREAM ranging from 1 to 8 streams + a ping -f using various packet sizes. I'll update this machine today to 2.6.24-rc8-git + net-2.6 and try again to reproduce. I also applied David's patch while trying some RT experiments on another, 8 way machine used as a server, but on this machine I didn't experience the Tx Unit Hang message with or without the patch. - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
