From: "Woodford, Timothy W." <Timothy.Woodford@jhuapl.edu>
To: "Avargil, Raanan" <raanan.avargil@intel.com>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@intel.com>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org"
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 21:15:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c79639cd5a4c4907b83e2f5df50bd2bc@APLEX07.dom1.jhuapl.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8F4C390AFA9F4444A4AA77F4A3BEC78A190E7843@HASMSX110.ger.corp.intel.com>
>> This is prepatory work for an expanding list of adapter families that have occasional ~10 hour clock jumps when being used for PTP. Factor out the sanitization function and convert to using a feature (bug) flag, per suggestion from Jesse Brandeburg.
>>
>> Littering functional code with device-specific checks is much messier than simply checking a flag, and having device-specific init set flags as needed.
>> There are probably a number of other cases in the e1000e code that could/should be converted similarly.
>
> Looks ok to me.
> Adding Chris who asked what happens if we reach the max retry counter (E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD)?
> This counter is set to 50.
> Can you, for testing purposes, decreased this value (or even set it to 0) and see what happens?
I have one of the affected NICs. I inserted some test code into the module to check the value of i after the for loop inside the sanitize function exits to check how many iterations of the loop were being run. I ran a PTP test setup for a few hours with E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD=50, and the maximum number was 5 iterations.
It looks like setting E1000_MAX_82574_SYSTIM_REREAD to 0 will just disable the return value checking and will have the same results as disabling the sanitization function. I'll set the max retry counter to 1 and run an overnight test to see what happens.
Tim Woodford
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-27 21:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-19 20:25 [PATCH net] e1000e: fix PTP on e1000_pch_lpt variants Jarod Wilson
2016-07-19 20:49 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Rustad, Mark D
2016-07-20 17:05 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-07-20 11:01 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2016-07-23 16:44 ` [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] e1000e: fix PTP on e1000_pch_variants Jarod Wilson
2016-07-23 16:44 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization Jarod Wilson
2016-07-23 16:44 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] e1000e: fix PTP on e1000_pch_lpt variants Jarod Wilson
2016-07-25 17:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] e1000e: fix PTP on e1000_pch_variants Jesse Brandeburg
2016-07-26 17:39 ` [PATCH net-next 3/2] e1000e: convert systim overflow check to use flags2 Jarod Wilson
2016-07-26 17:53 ` Jeff Kirsher
2016-07-26 17:58 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-07-26 18:25 ` [PATCH v3 net-next 0/2] e1000e: fix PTP on e1000_pch_variants Jarod Wilson
2016-07-26 18:25 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] e1000e: factor out systim sanitization Jarod Wilson
2016-07-27 14:09 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Avargil, Raanan
2016-07-27 15:01 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-08-02 1:32 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-08-02 7:33 ` Brown, Aaron F
2016-08-11 15:48 ` Jarod Wilson
2016-07-27 21:15 ` Woodford, Timothy W. [this message]
2016-07-29 14:40 ` Woodford, Timothy W.
2016-08-04 19:34 ` Brown, Aaron F
2016-08-04 19:30 ` Brown, Aaron F
2016-07-26 18:25 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/2] e1000e: fix PTP on e1000_pch_lpt variants Jarod Wilson
2016-08-04 19:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Brown, Aaron F
2016-07-24 20:30 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] " kbuild test robot
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=c79639cd5a4c4907b83e2f5df50bd2bc@APLEX07.dom1.jhuapl.edu \
--to=timothy.woodford@jhuapl.edu \
--cc=christopher.s.hall@intel.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jarod@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raanan.avargil@intel.com \
/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®