From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [rfc 0/4] igb: bandwidth allocation Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:31:09 +1100 Message-ID: <20091125063104.GC4894@verge.net.au> References: <20091105005847.941190065@vergenet.net> <9929d2390911041746g2b5f51cdia489bd87d87e41ef@mail.gmail.com> <20091105022123.GA22019@verge.net.au> <9929d2390911140001t2938271ep7455de5874ee0144@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck , Arnd Bergmann To: Jeff Kirsher Return-path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:51218 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbZKYGbF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:31:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9929d2390911140001t2938271ep7455de5874ee0144@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:01:32AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 18:21, Simon Horman wrote= : > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:46:50PM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 16:58, Simon Horman wr= ote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > this series of patches exposes the bandwidth allocation > >> > hardware support of the Intel 82576. It does so through > >> > a rather hackish sysfs entry. That interface is just intended > >> > for testing so that the exposed hardware feature can > >> > be exercised. I would like to find a generic way to expose > >> > this feature to user-space. > >> > > >> > >> Thanks Simon. =C2=A0I have add the 4 patch series to my tree for t= esting. > > > > Thanks. I wanted to get the code out rather than sitting on it > > for lack of a better user-space interface. Although there > > is a lot of fluff the actual register twiddling for > > bandwidth allocation turned out to be quite simple. > > >=20 > Simon - > After doing some testing on the series of patches, we are getting a > panic with these patches applied to net-next. I have provided below > the panic we saw, right now we have a large patch load so a bisect > will have to wait. Hopefully with time permitting, we will be able t= o > revisit these patches soon. Hi Jeff, sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I've been caught up with family matters for the past few weeks (my wife had a baby!). It seems that the problem was caused by the second patch in the series moving the initialisation of adapter->vfs_allocated_count. I will submit a fresh patch series to resolve this and some other minor problems.