Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:59:11 -0500 From: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> To: sivakumar.subramani@wipro.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Regarding Jumbo frame implementation in bge Message-ID: <4550BB5F.3040101@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <821C7AD2A9F78942B86059792262577315B072@blr-m3-msg.wipro.com> References: <821C7AD2A9F78942B86059792262577315B072@blr-m3-msg.wipro.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sivakumar.subramani@wipro.com wrote: > Hi, > > In bge driver, we have BGE_JUMBO_FRAMELEN defined to 9018. > if_bgereg.h:#define BGE_JUMBO_FRAMELEN 9018 > > This macro is used to allocate the memory for jumbo buffer. If I have > a MTU size of 2000, still bge will allocate the jumbo buffer of size > BGE_JUMBO_FRAMELEN. Instead can we make the size to be depend on the > MTU. I mean instead of using BGE_JUMBO_FRAMELEN macro we can use MTU > + IP header + CRC for Jumbo buffer size. > > Any reason for allocating a hard coded 9018 size all Jumbo MTU frame > (whether it is 9000 / 2000)? > > Thanks, ~Siva > Sivakumar: Allocations are done via the zone managers.. and thus setup at kernel boot. A value like the MTU is set dynamically... So doing something like this would be questionable IMO.. I am sure it could be done.. but I don't see the value. In theory you have a waste for just a short time.. before its m_free'd R -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4550BB5F.3040101>