Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:44:18 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CFT: re(4) Message-ID: <20070612114418.GI44998@cdnetworks.co.kr> In-Reply-To: <20070602081009.GB1140@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20070529121837.GA12808@cdnetworks.co.kr> <20070602081009.GB1140@cdnetworks.co.kr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:10:09PM +0900, To freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:18:37PM +0900, To freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've committed a fix for bus_dma(9) bug which resulted in poor Tx > > performance on TSO enabled re(4) driver. With the fix and revised > > re(4) I got more sane performance on re(4). Because there are too many > > hardwares that rely on re(4) I'd like to hear any success or failure > > reports before revised re(4) hits the tree. > > For PCIe hardware users it would be great if you can submit > > performance numbers for stock re(4) and revised one. The revised > > re(4) can be found at the following URL. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/re.HEAD.patch > > > > Note, you need latest kernel to get correct performance numbers. > > > > I've fixed a bug which resulted in checksum offload bug and update the > patch. It should have no ression. > We're very close to code freeze and have too many consumers of re(4). > Without users success report it would be impossible to commit the patch > before branching 7. Since I don't have 8139C+ based ones, I'm also > interested in how it works on 8139C+ hardwares. > I received few feedbacks on overhauled re(4). Without this patch TSO would be unstable and you would get "can't map defragmented mbuf" messages on console under heavy load. If I couldn't get more feedbacks I'll disable TSO support before code freeze. -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070612114418.GI44998>