From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 14:43:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289B2106566B for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:43:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AEA8FC12 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:43:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49637 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2011 12:47:38 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Dec 2011 12:47:38 -0000 Message-ID: <4EDCD23C.8050706@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:16:28 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Vogel References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Net Subject: Re: VLAN HWTSO question/problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:43:13 -0000 On 02.12.2011 21:06, Jack Vogel wrote: > I have just discovered during some validation testing on the em driver, > that if HWTSO is enabled > at the same time as VLAN_HWTAGGING and/or VLAN_HWFILTER that its broken. > > Looking at the vlan source its not obvious why this would be the case, but > netperf just fails completely. > I can turn TAGGING off and I can get TSO, or turn off TSO and get > TAGGING/FILTERING, but not > both :( > > My tester only has 8.2 to try this on, not sure if its a bug or a design > limitation, can someone > enlighten me? At the moment I'm thinking of just turning HWTSO off by > default? Maybe the HW or drive chokes on the overall ethernet frame being longer than 64K due to the VLAN header even though the IP packet part stays within the limits? -- Andre