Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:43:05 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: driver packet coalesce Message-ID: <2a41acea0705301743y7e11584bi4a06efed85d3ecf7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <465E140B.2080007@elischer.org> References: <2a41acea0705301645x65e68e8q23c1b91d5f460ea3@mail.gmail.com> <20070530235456.GA67464@heff.fud.org.nz> <465E140B.2080007@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/30/07, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: > Andrew Thompson wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:45:05PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> Does any driver do this now? And if a driver were to coalesce > >> packets and send something up the stack that violates mss > >> will it barf? > > > > It would barf for things like bridging where the packet gets spit out a > > different interface. The bridge driver already has code to disable > > txcsum so it could be made to handle that too. > > > > > > Andrew ... > > This is part od TOE right? No, its something thats being talked about in our new PCI-E 10G driver. > I presume that it wouldn't coalesce packets that are not destined for the local > machine? would it coalesce in promiscuous mode? I guess it would only be > able to coalesce TCP packets that are adjacent in the same session. > Whether it also can coalesce adjacent packets that are destined for another > machine (for which it is not running the session) is not known... I would guess it > wouldn't do it. Right, at least that's the lines I was thinking about. At this point this is brainstorming, and I wanted to know if there were any hard stops that would keep it from being done. Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0705301743y7e11584bi4a06efed85d3ecf7>