Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:03:01 +0100 | From | netdev@kapio-te ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 0/2] mv88e6xxx: Add MAB offload support |
| |
On 2022-11-15 15:56, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 02:25:13PM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-11-15 13:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> > Do you have a timeline for when the regression was introduced? >> > Commit 35da1dfd9484 reverts cleanly, so I suppose giving it a go with >> > that reverted might be worth a shot. Otherwise, a bisect from a known >> > working version only takes a couple of hours, and shouldn't require >> > other changes to the setup. >> >> Wow! Reverting 35da1dfd9484 and the problem has disappeared. :-) > > See? That wasn't very painful, was it.
Indeed it was not, when you get a good tip. Thanks alot! :-)
> > Now, why doesn't that commit work for you? that's the real question. > I'm going to say there's a big assumption made there. The old code used > to poll up to 16 times with sleeps of up to 2 ms in between. > The new code polls until at least 50 ms have elapsed. > I can imagine the thought process being something like "hmm, 16*2=32ms, > let's round that up to 50 just to be sure". But the effective timeout > was not really increased. Rather said, in the old code there was never > really an effective timeout, since the polling code could have been > preempted many times, and these preemptions would not be accounted > against the msleep(2) calls. Whereas the new code really tracks > something approximating 50 ms now. > > Could you please add the reverted patch back to your git tree, and see > by how much do you need to increase the timeout for your system to get > reliable results? >
Yes, so you want me to simply increase the 50ms on line 58 in smi.c...
I have now tried to increase it even to 10000ms == 10s and it didn't help, so something else must be needed...
| |