> On Feb 9, 2008 1:51 PM, Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> wrote:
>> Martin Rogge wrote:
>>> On Saturday 09 February 2008 11:07:26 Martin Rogge wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am not so familiar with the various mailing lists and missed out on
>>>>
e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net the first time. Please cc me on any
>>>> replies.
>>>>
>>>> I am looking for help with either making the e1000e driver work on my
>>>> Thinkpad T60 or fixing the 1s latency issue with e1000.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I do not understand why the e1000e driver failed to recognize
>>>> the NIC when I tried. At least, I noticed the correct device ID is defined
>>>> in drivers/net/e1000e/hw.h:
>>>>
>>>> #define E1000_DEV_ID_82573L 0x109A
>>>>
>>>> Any help is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: e1000 1sec latency problem
>>>> Date: Thursday 07 February 2008
>>>> From: Martin Rogge <marogge@onlinehome.de>
>>>> To:
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>>
>>>> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the famous e1000 latency problems:
>>>> Hi, I have the same problem with my Thinkpad T60.
>>>>
>>>> root@zorro:~# ping arnold
>>>> PING arnold (192.168.158.6) 56(84) bytes of data.
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=49.7 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.438 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1000 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.970 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=885 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.484 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=529 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.02 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=149 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.549 ms
>>>> 64 bytes from arnold (192.168.158.6): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.829 ms
>>>>
>>>> --- arnold ping statistics ---
>>>> 11 packets transmitted, 11 received, 0% packet loss, time 9999ms
>>>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.438/238.113/1000.967/365.279 ms, pipe 2
>>>> root@zorro:~# uname -a
>>>> Linux zorro 2.6.24 #6 SMP PREEMPT Sun Feb 3 18:27:48 CET 2008 i686 Intel(R)
>>>> Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
>>>> root@zorro:~# lspci -vvv
>>> [stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the e1000e driver is not an option as it will not detect the
>>>> NIC:
>>>>
>>>> ----from dmesg with e1000 compiled in:
>>>> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-k2-NAPI
>>>> Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation.
>>>> ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:00.0[A] -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16
>>>> PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:02:00.0 to 64
>>>> e1000: 0000:02:00.0: e1000_probe: (PCI Express:2.5Gb/s:Width x1)
>>>> 00:15:58:c3:3a:71
>>>> e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
>>>>
>>>> ----from dmesg with e1000e compiled in:
>>>> e1000e: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - 0.2.0
>>>> e1000e: Copyright (c) 1999-2007 Intel Corporation.
>>>>
>>>> Any pointers?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> Just for the records, I googled the following solution for the Lenovo T60:
>>>
>>> (a) use the e1000 driver
>>> (b) if compiling as a module, add the following parameter to modprobe.conf:
>>> options e1000 RxIntDelay=5
>>> (c) if compiling a static driver, use the following patch (based on 2.6.24):
>>>
>>> --- e1000_param.c.orig 2008-01-24 23:58:37.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ e1000_param.c 2008-02-09 20:42:23.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@
>>> * Valid Range: 0-65535
>>> */
>>> E1000_PARAM(RxIntDelay, "Receive Interrupt Delay");
>>> -#define DEFAULT_RDTR 0
>>> +#define DEFAULT_RDTR 5
>>> #define MAX_RXDELAY 0xFFFF
>>> #define MIN_RXDELAY 0
>>>
>>> After reboot, the average ping time is still factor 10 worse than it should
>>> be, but it stays below 2 ms (which is a remarkable improvement compared to
>>> 1000 ms).
>> correct, this was a workaround which improved things for most people, but did not
>> *fix* it.
>>
>> the real fix is to disable L1 ASPM alltogether at the cost of more power
>> consumption, which is what is in e1000e in 2.6.25-git.
>
> e1000e doesn't recognize his NIC. Will you be adding this to the e1000
> driver as well?
