> -----Original Message----- > From: Vick, Matthew > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:47 AM > To: Richard Cochran > Cc: Keller, Jacob E; [email protected]; linuxptp- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] 82576 and PTP: poll tx timestamp timeout > > On 8/14/13 10:19 AM, "Richard Cochran" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 03:23:06PM +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote: > >> On 8/14/13 12:31 AM, "Richard Cochran" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I believe changing options does make a difference for the 82576. At > >>least, > >> I had issues with E2E in the past--I would need to re-test to confirm if > >> there is still an issue or not. I remember getting Rx packets to be > >> timestamped too close together, which the 82576 cannot support, but > I > >>did > >> grab the tip of the ptp4l tree and not a stable release at the time. > > > >Wait a minute, "Rx packets"? > > > >I thought the issues were with Tx packets (and the driver does try to > >correctly work around this). > > > >The issue reported here and in Alexander's thread are about missing > >transmit time stamps. That much is clear from the logs. If incoming > >packets can spoil transmit time stamps, then all bets are off, and > >the card is just not usable. > > Agreed, but the hardware can definitely Tx and Rx timestamps at the > same > time--I just mentioned using P2P for a general improvement on 82576. In > this case, it does sound like something about the polling is likely > terminating too early (as per the other thread going on). > > > > >> Adding Jake to the thread, since I'm fairly certain that Alexander was > >> using a modified driver or stack to do something non-standard, so it > >> wasn't a bug with the 82576. Jake, do you remember what the root > cause > >>was > >> on that one? > > > >This was never resolved, and Alex stopped responding to questions. But > >he appears to me to have had the same symptoms. > > > >Thanks, > >Richard > > I believe it was resolved off-list, but I look to Jake to confirm that one. > > Cheers, > Matthew
I never got a resolution to that.. I thought Alex was having an issue that he wasn't, because he claimed to be using ptp4l 1.3 when he was using ptp4l 1.1 (which didn't use the poll method) I believe the issue you are seeing regarding the RJ45 port is simply not polling long enough.. Did you ever change the value of the tx timestamp timeout configuration option from ptp4l 1.1? And if so could you try increasing the poll_tx_timeout option to 5 or so? Thanks - Jake ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
