Re: memory problem with fec on 8250

Użytkownik Eugene Surovegin napisał:

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:37:28AM +0100, Wojciech Kromer wrote:

quoted

i have to check end-of-trasmit interrupt code, but it seems to be good,
and it's common used driver (i hope so)

Yep, quick look didn't reveal anything suspicious.

To quickly check TX skb leak theory I'd add one counter and
 1) increment it in fcc_start_xmit, and increment it for each
    transmitted packet (e.g. at line 450)

 2) decrement it in fcc_enet_interrupt right after dev_kfree_skb_irq
    (at line 593).

Make this counter accessible from user mode, e.g. through /proc and
run your test :)

so i made such test, theese are results:

bash-2.05# cat /proc/interrupts
           CPU0
 19:        157   8260 SIU   Edge      dsp_msg
 33:      81139   8260 SIU   Edge      fenet
 34:          0   8260 SIU   Edge      fenet
 40:       3909   8260 SIU   Edge      uart
 42:        134   8260 SIU   Edge      uart
 43:          0   8260 SIU   Edge      uart
BAD:      14481

bash-2.05# cat /proc/kdebug
tx_skb_alloc=53384 tx_skb_free=29058

_anyone_ knows why there is such difference between allocs and frees in
fcc_enet.c



--
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* per pedes ad astra! *
* * * * * * * * * * * *    mailto:krom@dgt-lab.com.pl


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Wojciech Kromer wrote:

_anyone_ knows why there is such difference between allocs and frees in
fcc_enet.c

What kernel and driver is this?

The latest one I checked into linuxppc_2_4_devel a long time ago
had the benefit of being tested at the UNH Interoperability Laboratory.
This included performance testing and error recovery.  For this driver
to be failing, it must have been modified from that version and we
need to determine what was done to get it corrected.

Thanks.


	-- Dan


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/