Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:10:20 -0800 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: improved TSO interface needed Message-ID: <b1fa29170702252110h3217bf82pdc9a3b46561b1671@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0702252053v2357b5f5tefbcf58375be1a2f@mail.gmail.com> References: <b1fa29170702242255i323077e8t3e5cfe696431c50b@mail.gmail.com> <45E19B54.9060007@freebsd.org> <b1fa29170702250641w3b365a97u62f066087d1bffe8@mail.gmail.com> <45E1A3B4.7090002@freebsd.org> <2a41acea0702252053v2357b5f5tefbcf58375be1a2f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> LSO is MicroSlop's term for TSO :) As usual, they rename it, and
> next they do something non-standard to er 'differentiate' as the
> euphemism goes...
>
> Kinda what Sun's lawsuit back in the 90s against their Java
> strategy was all about :)
>
> Nevertheless, I don't understand Kip either, when we do TSO there
> is no evidence on the wire, it still has MTU sized packets. I fail to
> see why I should care about some LSO spec, what does it break?
The stack will send down chains where pkthdr.len > 65536 bytes - I'm
also seeing it send down mbuf chains of 66 mbufs or more. I don't
think all cards can handle an arbitrary number of descriptors being
used for a single packet.
-Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170702252110h3217bf82pdc9a3b46561b1671>