Frank de Lange wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:51:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > great. Back when i had the same problem, flood pinging another host (on
> > the local network) was the quickest way to reproduce the hang:
> >
> > ping -f -s 10 otherhost
> >
> > this produced an IOAP
> > The spin_lock_irqsave() is absolutely my preferred fix, and if I remember
> > correctly this is in fact how some early 2.1.x code fixed the ne2000
> > driver when the original irq scalability stuff happened (for some time
> > during development we did not have a working "disable_irq()" AT ALL
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:15:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> >
> > Gentleman, this (the patch to 8390.c) seems to fix the problem.
>
> The problem with this patch is that anybody with a slow ISA ne2000 clone
> will basically have absolutely _horr
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
>
> Gentleman, this (the patch to 8390.c) seems to fix the problem.
The problem with this patch is that anybody with a slow ISA ne2000 clone
will basically have absolutely _horrible_ interrupt latency because we
hold the irq lock over some quite expen
> WITH. patched 8390.c, patched apic.c, sock io_apic.c. My very strong
> feeling is that this will be a stable combination, and that this is what
> we want as a final solution.
If you do that please #ifdef SMP all the changes. Its impossible to use a modem
and an ne2K together on a typical PC oth
Frank de Lange wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:54:31PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > I have found one combination that doesn't hang with the unpatched
> > 8390.c, but network throughput is down to 1/2. I hope that's due to the
> > debugging changes.
>
> Hm, could it be that the fact tha
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:54:31PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> I have found one combination that doesn't hang with the unpatched
> 8390.c, but network throughput is down to 1/2. I hope that's due to the
> debugging changes.
Hm, could it be that the fact that network throughput is halved causes
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:51:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> great. Back when i had the same problem, flood pinging another host (on
> the local network) was the quickest way to reproduce the hang:
>
> ping -f -s 10 otherhost
>
> this produced an IOAPIC-hang within seconds.
Apart from k
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> okay - i just wanted to hear a definitive word from you that this fixes
> your problem, because this is what we'll have to do as a final solution.
> (barring any other solution.)
>
Ingo, is that possible?
The current fix is "disable_irq_nosync() and enable_irq() cause
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> PATCHED 8390.c (using irq_safe spinlocks instead of disable_irq)
> PATCHED apic.c (focus cpu ENABLED)
> STOCK io_apic.c
>
> No problems under heavy network load.
>
> Gentleman, this (the patch to 8390.c) seems to fix the problem.
great. Back when i h
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> okay - i just wanted to hear a definitive word from you that this fixes
> your problem, because this is what we'll have to do as a final solution.
> (barring any other solution.)
Patching 8390.c won't fix this for me. The only thing on IRQ19 when I saw
i
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:37:24PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> okay - i just wanted to hear a definitive word from you that this fixes
> your problem, because this is what we'll have to do as a final solution.
> (barring any other solution.)
Now running with this config:
PATCHED 8390.c (using ir
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:34:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ? this is x86-only code. There is no hot-pluggable CPU support for Linux
> AFAIK. (But in any case, the code is basically ready for hot-pluggable
> CPUs, just take a few precautions and change cpu_online_mask and a couple
> of other th
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> It is. As I already mentioned in other messages, I already tested with
> JUST the patched 8390.c driver, no other patches. It was stable. I
> then patched apic.c AND io_apic.c, which did not introduce new
> instabilities. Unless you think that reverti
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:31:15PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
>
> > WITH or WITHOUT the changed 8390 driver? I can already give you the
> > results for running WITH the changed driver: it works. I have not yet
> > tried it WITHOUT the changed 8390 dr
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> BTW, does this (TARGET_CPUS cpu_online_mask) not wreak havoc with
> systems with hot-pluggable CPUs (many Suns, etc...)? Wouldn;t it be
> better to make this a config option (like the optional PCI fixes for
> crappy BIOSs)?
? this is x86-only code. T
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> WITH or WITHOUT the changed 8390 driver? I can already give you the
> results for running WITH the changed driver: it works. I have not yet
> tried it WITHOUT the changed 8390 driver (so that would be stock 8390,
> patched apic.c, stock io_apic.c). Pl
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:19:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > In addition, I patched apic.c (focus cpu enabled)
> > In addition, I patched io_apic ((TARGET_CPUS 0xff)
>
> please try it with the focus CPU enabling change (we want to enable that
> feature, i only disabled it due to the stuck-ne2
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> In addition, I patched apic.c (focus cpu enabled)
> In addition, I patched io_apic ((TARGET_CPUS 0xff)
please try it with the focus CPU enabling change (we want to enable that
feature, i only disabled it due to the stuck-ne2k bug), but with
TARGET_CP
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:11:29PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Frank, please clarify:
> you still run without disable_irq_nosync() in 8390.c?
I am running with your patched version of 8390.c (so WITHOUT
disable_irq_nosync()).
In addition, I patched apic.c (focus cpu enabled)
In addition, I pa
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> I'd like to know _which_ of the two makes a difference (or does it only
> trigger with both of them enabled)? And even then I'm not sure that it is
> "the" solution - both changes to io-apic handling had some reason for
> them. Ingo, what was the focus-cpu thing?
>
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [...] Ingo, what was the focus-cpu thing?
well, some time ago i had an ne2k card in an SMP system as well, and found
this very problem. Disabling/enabling focus-cpu appeared to make a
difference, but later on i made experiments that show that in both
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Frank de Lange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 08:33:15PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Frank, the 2.4.0 contains 2 band aids that were added for ne2k smp:
> >
> > * From Ingo: focus cpu disabled, in arch/i386/kernel/apic.c
> > * From myself: TARGET_CPU = cpu_online_ma
23 matches
Mail list logo
