Re: peculiar problem with 2.6, 8139too + ACPI

[Robert Fendt]

On 17 May 2004 14:24:42 -0400
Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > One additional problem in debugging this is that it seems to be
> > depending on the local network topology, since I somehow cannot
> > reproduce it when downloading from machines on the LAN or when I have a
> > slow downstream connection (e.g. DSL).

Maybe I can add at least some details on the differing network
topologies. My local network is a small 100BaseT network, one single
8-port switch. Connection to "the outside" is made through a
masquerading router (an old 233-PentiumMMX box), which has an ADSL modem
connection (128/768kbit up/down). As I said, I cannot produce the
problem here, neither local nor when fetching data from external
sources.

The second topology is a large corporate-style network (university), so
it consists of several hundred machines and some dozens switches and
routers, at least. The particular section I am connected to is 100BaseFX
based, with BaseT-to-fiber transceiver switches in every office. So the
office is 100BaseT, and the connection between the offices is 100BaseFX.
The whole is connected to the rest of the network through a switch
somewhere in the building, a Cisco thingy I would guess (though I have
never seen it). The connection of the university to the Internet is
something in the gigabit/s range, through the "DFN" (deutsches
Forschungsnetzwerk, German scientific network). I do not have more
information, sorry.

> Does
> cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power
> show any C3 usage?

Yes, if I read this correctly, it does. BTW, seemingly pretty much the same on AC or battery.

betazed:~# cat /proc/acpi/processor/CPU1/power
active state:            C2
default state:           C1
bus master activity:     ffffffff
states:
    C1:                  promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[000] usage[00000010]
   *C2:                  promotion[C3] demotion[C1] latency[001] usage[00025200]
    C3:                  promotion[--] demotion[C2] latency[101] usage[00024564]


> I think we're having a similar problem with the ipw2100.  it would
> be interesting if you plugged an e100 into the failing config if
> it fails the same way.

Could be difficult. We do not have such a card in the workgroup (would
have to be PCMCIA, of course; is there even such a thing?), and I would
have to convince my boss of buying one for testing purposes. I _could_
of course try to get the ipw2100 driver working, since we have an ap in
the group (and the laptop is Centrino based, as I mentioned before). I
am not informed on its status, however: does WEP encrytion work now?
Also a test would have to wait until tuesday, anyway, since I will not
return to the office before.

Regards,
Robert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/