From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161474AbWASW5b (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:57:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161478AbWASW5b (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:57:31 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:16612 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161474AbWASW5a (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:57:30 -0500 Subject: RE: My vote against eepro* removal From: Steven Rostedt To: kus Kusche Klaus Cc: Lee Revell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1137697744.6762.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1137697744.6762.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:57:25 -0500 Message-Id: <1137711445.6762.116.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 14:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 11:26 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > > > From: Lee Revell > > > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > > > > Last time I tested (around 2.6.12), eepro100 worked much better > > > > in -rt kernels w.r.t. latencies than e100: > > Try the latest -rt kernel with e100 to see if it still is a delay. You > can also run in PREEMPT_DESKTOP so that the interrupt handlers are not > threads and see if that shows up in the latency. I just booted up 2.6.15-rt6 (PREEMPT_DESKTOP, regular soft and hard irqs) on a 366 MHz UP machine with init=/bin/bash. Loaded the e100 driver, setup the network. Then started to ping it from another box. I had a 80 usec latency, and that wasn't even from the network card. So, e100 should not be a problem. I did see the interrupts go off every 2 seconds too. Check to see if you still get the latencies with e100 and the latest kernel. As Lee already said. You notice something fishy __PLEASE__ report it. Arjan's response was that this shows that we should only have one driver for a certain task, otherwise people wont report a problem with one, if the other satisfies their needs. And thus, the problem remains. -- Steve