Re: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)
- From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 08:36:57 -0700
[Adding Bruce to the Cc, reply below]
Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:14:52AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:I just checked and the fix I was referring to earlier didn't make it into 2.6.21-final. You can get 2.6.21-git1 from kernel.org which has the fix. See
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/patch-2.6.21-git1.log
Good. So I tried that patch (well, actually only the change visible at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/6/268). I patched it into a 2.6.20.11 kernel,
using the same config file as previously. The good news is that this fixes
my issue: there are no lost ticks anymore, and the link does negotiate a
gigabit connection. This is a great improvement for me :)
I still seem to hit an issue if using the ethtool command, though.
when using 'ethtool -s eth0 autoneg on', the link comes up at gigabit speed,
but a couple seconds later is comes down again, and then up at 100 megabits:
e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex
e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Down
e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex
e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
The same thing happens if I use ifdown eth0; ifup eth0 too. Once again,
I only observe this on my DQ965GF motherboard, the DG965RY board is fine
(stays at gigabit speed when I issue these commands).
Is this something you could easily reproduce at Intel or would you want me
to look into that issue on my system ?
I think we have confirmed this issue and I'll work with Bruce on seeing where the fix went. I might give you another patch to try.
Auke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)
- From: Allan, Bruce W
- RE: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)
- References:
- 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- From: Michel Lespinasse
- Re: 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- From: Chuck Ebbert
- Re: 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- From: Michel Lespinasse
- Re: 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- From: Kok, Auke
- Re: 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- From: Michel Lespinasse
- Re: 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- From: Kok, Auke
- e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)
- From: Michel Lespinasse
- 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel
- Prev by Date: Re: Back to the future.
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)
- Previous by thread: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)
- Next by thread: RE: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|