Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:59:10 -0500 From: Mark Mayo <mark@vmunix.com> To: dg@root.com Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: de underflow errors. huh? Message-ID: <19971116145910.31953@vmunix.com> In-Reply-To: <199711160845.AAA13089@implode.root.com>; from David Greenman on Sun, Nov 16, 1997 at 12:45:44AM -0800 References: <19971116001710.02627@vmunix.com> <199711160845.AAA13089@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 16, 1997 at 12:45:44AM -0800, David Greenman wrote: > > >de0: abnormal interrupt: transmit underflow > > > >I have no clue what this means. Packets seem to be flowing through > >the interface nicely, and there is no noticeable packet loss. > >If anyone has any ideas what could be causing this, or if I should > >give a hoot, please let me know. > > It's indicating that the PCI bus was sufficiently busy enough to cause > the transmit DMA to be stalled too long. The proper response to this condition > in the device driver it to dynamically increase the transmit threshold (the > number of bytes that are DMA'ed onto the card before the transmission is > actually started on the wire). The fxp driver does this, the de driver > doesn't. I think Matt Thomas might have fixed this in a later rev., but I'm > not sure about that. > Anyway, other than the annoying console messages and perhaps a packet > drop when it happens, the problem can be ignored. Do you think increasing the bus speed will make a difference? This machine is a P54C 150 - I originally wanted to run it at 75MHz * 2, but the dealer gave me one of the aftermarket Intel CPUs with the integrated heat sink, and the machine just plain won't make it past the memory check when I run the bus at 75... I've done this (75*2) setup on several other machines with no problems - but they had the OEM'ed version of the CPU with no heatsink, and a grey bottom. I'm guessing that this black bottomed jobby is preventing itself from being "overclocked" somehow. I may try and get a replacement CPU.. But before I do that do you think the jump from 60MHz to 75MHz will help the de card? Or is the 100Mb fxp simply delivering data too quickly for it to handle. Perhaps replacing the de with a fxp... I realize it's not really an error, but it bugs me for some reason. Plus it doesn't inspire confidence in the client when they look at their firewall machine and see abnormal interupt errors :-) Maybe I'll just change the error in the if_devar.h (I think that's what it's called..) to "Self integrity security pass completed successfully.". :-) TIA, -Mark > > -DG > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Mayo mark@vmunix.com RingZero Comp. http://www.vmunix.com/mark finger mark@vmunix.com for my PGP key and GCS code ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Win95/NT - 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. -UGU
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971116145910.31953>