Duhhh, I was not even running with CONFIG_ENET_BIG_BUFFERS enabled. Enabling this got rid of the error..
Regarding your patch, then 20% throughput increase looks very tempting 8-).... Thanks and sorry for the noise, K.D. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernlund at lumentis.se] > Sent: 10. desember 2002 10:47 > To: K?ri Dav??sson; linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org > Subject: RE: 8xx_io/enet.c > > > > > > Hello, > > > > I am hitting the following code (i.e. the printk() is > reached) in the interrupt handler for the ethernet on a custom 823e > > board in arch/ppc/8xx_io/enet.c > > > > /* Check for receive busy, i.e. packets coming but no place to > > * put them. This "can't happen" because the receive interrupt > > * is tossing previous frames. > > */ > > if (int_events & SCCE_ENET_BSY) { > > cep->stats.rx_dropped++; > > printk("CPM ENET: BSY can't happen.\n"); > > } > > > > Clearly this can happen, even though the comment sais otherwise. > > This happens for a "high" datarate sunrpc interface > operating over TCP/IP. > > > > Is it safe to ignore this "error" or is it a real bug that > should be investigated? > > hmm, not sure it's safe to ignore this "error", chances are > that receive > gets "stuck" since there won't be any more RX interrupts > until at least > one RX BD is freed. Try increasing the number of RX > BD's(CONFIG_ENET_BIG_BUFFERS, > will increase TX and RX BD's to 32). > > You can also try my patch, see > http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-embedded/200210/msg00272.html > or > http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-embedded/200210/msg00317.html > > Version 2 has a small bug(need to move the invalidate_dcache_range). > > It's still under verification so there may be problems with it. > > Jocke > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
