From: Andrey Savochkin <saw@saw.sw.com.sg>
To: Colin Walters <walters@cis.ohio-state.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: eepro100 (PCI ID 82820) lockups/failure
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 02:27:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010806022727.A25793@saw.sw.com.sg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87elqs2wbx.church.of.emacs@space-ghost.verbum.org>
In-Reply-To: <87elqs2wbx.church.of.emacs@space-ghost.verbum.org>; from "Colin Walters" on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:06:10AM
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:06:10AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> I have an ia32 motherboard (MSI 815EM Pro) with an integrated Intel
> ethernet controller, about which lspci -v has to say:
[snip]
> I'm using the 2.4.7 eepro100 driver, and the machine consistently
> locks up under any kind of heavy network load. I've tried
> 2.4.8-pre{1,2,3} with the same results. A message sometimes printed
> to syslog before the machine locks completely is:
>
> Aug 3 20:56:17 debian kernel: eepro100: wait_for_cmd_done timeout!
> Aug 3 21:01:22 debian kernel: eepro100: wait_for_cmd_done timeout!
> Aug 3 21:01:29 debian kernel: eepro100: wait_for_cmd_done timeout!
>
> Sometimes it's just the network that goes down, but usually the
> machine will lock not long thereafter.
>
> I noticed a patch posted to this mailing list:
>
> <URL:http://mailman.real-time.com/pipermail/linux-kernel/Week-of-Mon-20010618/041187.html>
>
> But it doesn't seem to have been applied.
Someone who experiences such timeouts needs to figure out how much time it
really can take before a command is accepted.
Some time ago the timeout was increased by the factor of 10, and now the
current timeout looks being insufficient.
It might be a problem with the time of specific commands or specific chip
revisions.
Or some hardware is too clever and somehow optimizes those repeated read
operations, so that they no longer take a fixed number of bus cycles.
In short, that patch isn't a real solution.
If someone provides me with the information which commands times-out and how
much time they really need, we could have a real solution.
Best regards
Andrey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-06 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-04 6:06 Colin Walters
2001-08-06 9:27 ` Andrey Savochkin [this message]
2001-08-06 15:48 ` Joseph Cheek
2001-08-07 10:48 ` Andrey Savochkin
2001-08-07 16:35 ` Joseph Cheek
2001-08-06 18:39 ` Colin Walters
2001-08-06 19:00 ` Richard B. Johnson
2001-08-07 10:24 ` Andrey Savochkin
2001-08-07 12:11 ` Richard B. Johnson
2001-08-06 19:14 ` Alan Cox
2001-08-07 10:46 ` Andrey Savochkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010806022727.A25793@saw.sw.com.sg \
--to=saw@saw.sw.com.sg \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=walters@cis.ohio-state.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®