From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Aug 20 04:51:39 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6FB9BEDEE; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:51:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF47E22; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:51:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by pdbmi9 with SMTP id mi9so9547853pdb.3; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:51:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=IjJI9xKS/Ee/lQYdIJZfNB/0g0GYNXctkYnPkN380Kg=; b=f/DCgY01KHz4pNVqTRvx6LkT3cCpnOnx+vNiYHmtEZWPjjC20SHZCeuvP3GeJ1qi1N Qj4Y/zCILAujFnZfxwFs04LZco/Wgl1wywGNeGnjP3NjkviV9kKDmddqVF/hg72Hcd4G aJ8ZFz8wYr3YvgDu+Ui55zYCMjjr25/XHe9kYRNHcRfNtxS3Ehuzfsl2VJFDeewCSe4f 8xbZ1IzdARwpFubECeh3/SIYH5zIM9xQFpN2T7HRt3n0DDP/yhVN2ZplDBh8yOHzcVZj 0otr+GYB3UEZ4jIXGRWyYeMN9oiREkx2eKpZRnYK/an/yA+uFrhi3EoVHufnmnEXIEow Q3Ag== X-Received: by 10.70.90.98 with SMTP id bv2mr2684918pdb.36.1440046298588; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com ([106.247.248.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xp10sm2637722pac.34.2015.08.19.21.51.33 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:51:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Yonghyeon PYUN X-Google-Original-From: "Yonghyeon PYUN" Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:51:25 +0900 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:51:25 +0900 To: Rick Macklem Cc: Hans Petter Selasky , FreeBSD stable , FreeBSD Net , Slawa Olhovchenkov , Christopher Forgeron , Daniel Braniss Subject: Re: ix(intel) vs mlxen(mellanox) 10Gb performance Message-ID: <20150820045125.GA982@michelle.fasterthan.com> Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com References: <473274181.23263108.1439814072514.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <1721122651.24481798.1439902381663.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <55D333D6.5040102@selasky.org> <1325951625.25292515.1439934848268.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <55D429A4.3010407@selasky.org> <20150819074212.GB964@michelle.fasterthan.com> <55D43590.8050508@selasky.org> <20150819081308.GC964@michelle.fasterthan.com> <1154739904.25677089.1439986439408.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1154739904.25677089.1439986439408.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:51:39 -0000 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:13:59AM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > Yonghyeon PYUN wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:51:44AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > On 08/19/15 09:42, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote: > > > >On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:00:52AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > >>On 08/18/15 23:54, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > >>>Ouch! Yes, I now see that the code that counts the # of mbufs is before > > > >>>the > > > >>>code that adds the tcp/ip header mbuf. > > > >>> > > > >>>In my opinion, this should be fixed by setting if_hw_tsomaxsegcount to > > > >>>whatever > > > >>>the driver provides - 1. It is not the driver's responsibility to know > > > >>>if > > > >>>a tcp/ip > > > >>>header mbuf will be added and is a lot less confusing that expecting the > > > >>>driver > > > >>>author to know to subtract one. (I had mistakenly thought that > > > >>>tcp_output() had > > > >>>added the tc/ip header mbuf before the loop that counts mbufs in the > > > >>>list. > > > >>>Btw, > > > >>>this tcp/ip header mbuf also has leading space for the MAC layer > > > >>>header.) > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>Hi Rick, > > > >> > > > >>Your question is good. With the Mellanox hardware we have separate > > > >>so-called inline data space for the TCP/IP headers, so if the TCP stack > > > >>subtracts something, then we would need to add something to the limit, > > > >>because then the scatter gather list is only used for the data part. > > > >> > > > > > > > >I think all drivers in tree don't subtract 1 for > > > >if_hw_tsomaxsegcount. Probably touching Mellanox driver would be > > > >simpler than fixing all other drivers in tree. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > If you change the behaviour don't forget to update and/or add comments > > > describing it. Maybe the amount of subtraction could be defined by some > > > macro? Then drivers which inline the headers can subtract it? > > > > > > > I'm also ok with your suggestion. > > > > > Your suggestion is fine by me. > > > > > > > > The initial TSO limits were tried to be preserved, and I believe that > > > TSO limits never accounted for IP/TCP/ETHERNET/VLAN headers! > > > > > > > I guess FreeBSD used to follow MS LSOv1 specification with minor > > exception in pseudo checksum computation. If I recall correctly the > > specification says upper stack can generate up to IP_MAXPACKET sized > > packet. Other L2 headers like ethernet/vlan header size is not > > included in the packet and it's drivers responsibility to allocate > > additional DMA buffers/segments for L2 headers. > > > Yep. The default for if_hw_tsomax was reduced from IP_MAXPACKET to > 32 * MCLBYTES - max_ethernet_header_size as a workaround/hack so that > devices limited to 32 transmit segments would work (ie. the entire packet, > including MAC header would fit in 32 MCLBYTE clusters). > This implied that many drivers did end up using m_defrag() to copy the mbuf > list to one made up of 32 MCLBYTE clusters. > > If a driver sets if_hw_tsomaxsegcount correctly, then it can set if_hw_tsomax > to whatever it can handle as the largest TSO packet (without MAC header) the > hardware can handle. If it can handle > IP_MAXPACKET, then it can set it to that. > I thought the upper limit was still IP_MAXPACKET. If driver increase it (i.e. > IP_MAXPACKET, the length field in the IP header would overflow which in turn may break firewalls and other packet handling in IPv4/IPv6 code path. If the limit no longer apply to network stack, that's great. Some controllers can handle up to 256KB TCP/UDP segmentation and supporting that feature wouldn't be hard.