Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:28:11 -0500 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@freebsd.org> To: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: UNS: Re: Limits on jumbo mbuf cluster allocation Message-ID: <20794.18907.530374.164737@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAFOYbc=7iROKzUwnB0fMR=ix8VFo%2BONfG=NX43jeF7jkp74JhQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20793.36593.774795.720959@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <51399926.6020201@freebsd.org> <CAFOYbc=x7U-s70KvcZJdrVP6v-On716qMi=HN1P2Kj%2Bd_K972A@mail.gmail.com> <20794.6692.191898.682241@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <513A2887.2010408@freebsd.org> <CAFOYbc=7iROKzUwnB0fMR=ix8VFo%2BONfG=NX43jeF7jkp74JhQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:13:28 -0800, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> said: > Yes, in the past the code was in this form, it should work fine Garrett, > just make sure > the 4K pool is large enough. I take it then that the hardware works in the traditional way, and just keeps on using buffers until the packet is completely written, then sets a field on the ring descriptor saying "the end of the packet is HERE"? I'll give that change a try when I get a chance. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20794.18907.530374.164737>