lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Extremely slow network with e1000 & ip_conntrack
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 07:54:15AM +0900, Stephen Lee wrote:
> Stephen Lee <mukansai@emailplus.org> wrote:
> >
> > I compiled lots of kernels :-( and narrowed it down to between 2.5.26
> > and 2.5.46.
> >
> > Kernel version Chip Problem?
> > 2.4.22 82540EM N
> > 2.5.26 82540EM N
> > 2.5.46 82540EM Y
> > 2.6.0-test10 82540EM Y
> > 2.6.0-test11 82540EM Y
> > 2.6.0-test11 82547EI N
> > 2.4.22nptlsmp 82547EI N
>
> I narrowed it down to patch-2.5.44. e1000 is updated, but I backed out
> the driver to the 2.5.43 version and it didn't fix the problem.
> Besides, 2.4.23 has a newer version of the driver and it doesn't have
> this problem.
>
> As far as I see netfilter was not updated in that patch, was it? I tried
> insmod -f ip_conntrack.o from 2.5.43 into the 2.5.44 kernel and it
> didn't stop the problem from happening, either.
>
> Please advice. If you don't think this is a netfilter problem I'll go
> check with linux-kernel.

Well, the problem is certainly triggered by connection tracking.

If I understood correctly:

1) stock 2.5.43: OK
2) stock 2.5.44: PROBLEM
3) stock 2.5.44 with the driver from 2.5.43: PROBLEM
4) stock 2.5.44 with ip_conntrack.o from 2.5.43: PROBLEM

So it has to be a change outside of the e1000 driver and outside of the
connection tracking code.

Unfortunately I don't have a 2.5.44.patch right here on my notebook atm
(travelling to India). I'll download it at the next opportunity and try
to review which change could be the culprit.

In the meantime, I think taking the discussion back to lkml seems to be
a good idea - since neither e1000 nor ip_conntrack code seem to be the
direct cause of the problem.

> Regards,
> Stephen

--
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org> http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean