Mesa hm2/hm2_7i96s.0: error finishing read

More
3 years 11 months ago #256066 by JT
I just tried
Code:
john@cave:~$ uname -a Linux cave 5.10.0-18-rt-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_RT Debian 5.10.140-1 (2022-09-02) x86_64 GNU/Linux

and got hm2/hm2_7i96s.0: error finishing read! itr-25604 so quite a bit better but not good enough for a machine. Good think this is my dev PC.

JT

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256068 by PCW
I would try 6.1 and 4.19

6.1:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install build-essential bin86 kernel-package libqt4-dev #libncurses5-dev pkg-config libssl-dev

mkdir rtlinux
cd rtlinux
wget git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-6.1-rc3.tar.gz
wget www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects...6.1-rc3-rt2.patch.gz
tar -xpf linux-6.1-rc3.tar.gz
gunzip patch-6.1-rc3-rt2.patch.gz
cp patch-6.1-rc3-rt2.patch linux-6.1-rc3
cd linux-6.1-rc3
cat patch-6.1-rc3-rt2.patch | patch -p1
make xconfig
make -j4
sudo make INSTALL_MOD_STRIP=1 modules_install
sudo make install

4.19
cd ~
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install build-essential bin86 kernel-package libqt4-dev #libncurses5-dev pkg-config libssl-dev

mkdir rtlinux
cd rtlinux
wget www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.19.255.tar.xz
wget www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects...9.255-rt113.patch.gz
tar -xpf linux-4.19.255.tar.xz
gunzip patch-4.19.255-rt113.patch.gz
cp patch-4.19.255-rt113.patch linux-4.19.255
cd linux-4.19.255
cat patch-4.19.255-rt113.patch | patch -p1
make xconfig
make -j4
sudo make modules_install
sudo make install


Both work acceptably on my somewhat troublesome Elite 800 G1

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256070 by PCW
Also if your test PC has a Intel Ethernet chip, you must disable irq coalescing
with ethtool.

Checking ping times will tell you if this is successful.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256072 by scotth
What sort of ping times should we see?
I'm at between .214 to .340 ms now.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256074 by PCW
That's pretty bad

What Host and what Ethernet chip?

Heres My 800 G1:

(note, the first ping is longer because an ARP request/reply are added)

PING 10.10.10.10 (10.10.10.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.180 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.121 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.122 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.121 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.121 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.136 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.123 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.122 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.121 ms

I get better (about 80-100) on a 8300

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256093 by scotth
This is from Mint21 install.

My older system is OK, but Mint21 has great features.

sh@sh-HP-EliteDesk-800-G1-SFF:~$ uname -a
Linux sh-HP-EliteDesk-800-G1-SFF 5.19.0-2-rt-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_RT Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux


sh@sh-HP-EliteDesk-800-G1-SFF:~$ ping 10.10.10.10
PING 10.10.10.10 (10.10.10.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.517 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.330 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.249 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.348 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.295 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.301 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.241 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.312 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.340 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.213 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.313 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.221 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.271 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.234 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.270 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.275 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.254 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.275 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.276 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.246 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.302 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=0.323 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=0.235 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=0.271 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=0.313 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=0.281 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=0.272 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=32 ttl=64 time=0.287 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=33 ttl=64 time=0.328 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=34 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=35 ttl=64 time=0.267 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=36 ttl=64 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=37 ttl=64 time=0.249 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=38 ttl=64 time=0.246 ms

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256096 by scotth
The ping times are about the same on Debian, but no errors.

sh@debian:~$ uname -a
Linux debian 4.19.0-17-rt-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 4.19.194-2 (2021-06-21) x86_64 GNU/Linux


sh@debian:~$ ping 10.10.10.10
PING 10.10.10.10 (10.10.10.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.477 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.399 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.305 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.309 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.312 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.312 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.328 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.319 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.310 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.306 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.270 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.208 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.356 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.302 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.301 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.361 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.253 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.328 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.284 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.314 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.283 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.306 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=0.361 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=0.388 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=0.312 ms

--- 10.10.10.10 ping statistics ---
27 packets transmitted, 27 received, 0% packet loss, time 656ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.208/0.317/0.477/0.050 ms

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256101 by PCW
It looks like you do not have IRQ coalescing disabled
try the ping times after:

sudo ethtool -C [your-ethernet-device-name] rx-usecs 0

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256110 by scotth
This is on Debian

sh@debian:~$ sudo ethtool -C eno1 rx-usecs 0
[sudo] password for sh:
sudo: ethtool: command not found

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
3 years 11 months ago #256112 by scotth
Yes, found it, and it makes a lot of difference.

64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=62 ttl=64 time=0.178 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=63 ttl=64 time=0.189 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=64 ttl=64 time=0.168 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=65 ttl=64 time=0.205 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=66 ttl=64 time=0.211 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=67 ttl=64 time=0.198 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=68 ttl=64 time=0.206 ms
^C
--- 10.10.10.10 ping statistics ---
68 packets transmitted, 68 received, 0% packet loss, time 654ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.154/0.198/0.220/0.019 ms

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.496 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum