Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 10:39:17 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is there any way to limit the amount of data in an mbuf chain submitted to a driver? Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmon_5eyXMP5UOsVVBP8UgKQLw5HLMO1NgswoGb-zF=2wtg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACyXjPwC5LRb7DT82n6PMbawceER3_nHko9c9tvrdQqceLiPww@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACyXjPwC5LRb7DT82n6PMbawceER3_nHko9c9tvrdQqceLiPww@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 May 2013 06:52, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I understand better why I am seeing EINVAL intermittently when sending > data from Samba via SMB2. > > The ixgbe driver, for TSO reasons, limits the amount of data that can > be DMA'd to 65535 bytes. It returns EINVAL for any mbuf chain larger > than that. > > The SO_SNDBUF for that socket is set to 131972. Mostly there is less > than 64kiB of space available, so that is all TCP etc can put into the > socket in one chain of mbufs. However, every now and then there is > more than 65535 bytes available in the socket buffers, and we have an > SMB packet that is larger than 65535 bytes, and we get hit. > > To confirm this I am going to set SO_SNDBUF back to the default of > 65536 and test again. My repros are very reliable. > > However, I wondered if my only way around this if I want to continue > to use SO_SNDBUF sizes larger than 65536 is to fragment large mbuf > chains in the driver? Hm, is this is a problem without TSO? Is the problem that the NIC can't handle a frame that big, or a buffer that big? Ie - if you handed the hardware two descriptors of 64k each, for the same IP datagram, will it complain? Or do you need to break it up into two separate IP datagrams, facing the driver, with a maximum size of 64k each? Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmon_5eyXMP5UOsVVBP8UgKQLw5HLMO1NgswoGb-zF=2wtg>