Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 May 2002 02:51:57 +0200 | From | Roger Luethi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] VIA Rhine stalls: TxAbort handling |
| |
On Tue, 14 May 2002 19:47:02 +0200, Urban Widmark wrote: > The backoff algorithm bits have different names (and possibly different > meaning) for the vt86c100a.
Not according to my data sheet. You may have been confused by the names I picked: BackAMD should really be MBA. My upcoming patch will change the names, i.e. AMD becomes MBA.
> My vt86c100a eeprom sets all backoff bits to 0000, but my vt6102 sets it > to 0010. Since the eeprom is reloaded when the driver opens, why force it > to "amd"?
You just answered your question. I did it because on my system that is the way to trigger aborts and I suspected some cards might come up with a different default value. VIA is clearing that bit in their driver so I wouldn't be too surprised if even some newer cards did it, too.
> A module parameter would be nice for testing.
For testing the current solution should do. A parameter would make sense if we come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for regular users to make a selection. It just might be. Maybe somebody who is more opinionated that me would like to step forward and make that call!?
> Ivan, have you tried playing with these bits?
Have _you_?
> Donalds suggestion is that the TxAborts is simply too much collisions. > Perhaps the eeprom selection of backoff algorithm isn't working well in > your environment.
No, it works just great. The problem is that the unmodified driver breaks down as soon as a TxAbort happens. From my limited experience, MBA seems to be rather aggressive which is a good thing in some situations (e.g. if nobody cares that you're monopolizing the network).
Roger - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |