Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:08:44 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org, Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Subject: Re: TSO, SMP and the em driver. Message-ID: <200609131108.45382.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <45073F58.6080900@freebsd.org> References: <E1GN5FA-00085C-CJ@hetzner.co.za> <7.0.1.0.0.20060912125903.15bdb7a0@sentex.net> <45073F58.6080900@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:14, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 12:43 PM 9/12/2006, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > >> TSO != (vlan && promisc) > > > > Sorry, the commonality I was referring to was VLAN hardware tagging and > > how it must be enabled for TSO, but that breaks other things. See a few > > messages ago > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2006-September/065818.html > > I'm sure we can find a workaround for that. Well, you could have the em(4) driver manually handle TSO in software, which is what it does to workaround the VLAN tag problem. (It does VLAN encapsulation in the driver.) While VLAN insertion may be trivial, re-implementing TCP segmentation in the driver might be a good bit less trivial to do. There's not going to be a simple easy workaround for this hardware bug. :( -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609131108.45382.jhb>