Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:41:16 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, David Christensen <davidch@freebsd.org>, linimon@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/174851: [bxe] [patch] UDP checksum offload is wrong in bxe driver Message-ID: <50E6EA0C.5080005@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <1356995087.59212.YahooMailClassic@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1356995087.59212.YahooMailClassic@web121604.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-01-01 0:04, Barney Cordoba wrote: > The statement above "assumes" that there is a benefit. voIP packets > are short, so the benefit of offloading is reduced. There is some > delay added by the hardware, and there are cpu cycles used in managing > the offload code. So those operations not only muddy the code, > but they may not be faster than simply doing the checksum on a much, much > faster cpu. Forgoing all the discussions on performance and possible penalties in drivers..... I think there is a large set of UDP streams (and growing) that do use larger packets. The video streaming we did used a size of header(14)+7*188, which is the max number of MPEG packet to fit into anything with an MTU < 1500. Receiving those on small embedded devices which can do HW check-summing is very beneficial there. On the large servers we would generate up to 5Gbit of outgoing streams. I'm sure that offloading UDP checks would be an advantage as well. (They did run mainly Linux, but FreeBSD would also work) Unfortunately most of the infrastructure has been taken down, so it is no longer possible to verify any of the assumptions. --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E6EA0C.5080005>