Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:39:04 -0800 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: pyunyh@gmail.com, Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com>, stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, jfv@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em(4) + ALTQ broken Message-ID: <2a41acea1002021339i3801fc4bw736fa01188f60290@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201002022137.52064.max@love2party.net> References: <147432021001310037n1b67f01bx4b4e8781321cea8@mail.gmail.com> <20100202173746.GA5901@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <2a41acea1002020948l6f3d1a08v9f4ccefd1241f566@mail.gmail.com> <201002022137.52064.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks Max, yes, i've done some digging myself and now see how things work, the rubber meets the road in the defines in if_var.h. And what it does is effectively short circuit Kip Macy's multiqueue code in favor of the old method. Right now I can see two possibilities, either the defines are not set in the build, OR there is something wrong in the logic of the short circuit approach in Kip's code. A question might be if ANY driver that is usinig TX Multiqueue has been successfully used with ALTQ? Jack On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> wrote: > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:48:02 Jack Vogel wrote: > > So apparently this thing needs no special knowledge in the driver, yet > > something in > > the new code breaks it, can someone explain tersely how the altq app > > actually > > "pokes" or "hooks up" to the driver? I am not clear about that and I > > suspect if I was > > this would all be clearer. > > The whole story is in > > man 9 altq > > long story short, as long as you consistently use the IFQ_* macros to > manage > the interface queue, things should just work. if_var.h used to > conditionally > define these macros to avoid ALTQ overhead when the kernel is built without > ALTQ. This has changed a long time ago and should not make any difference > anymore. > > I can't figure out who the OP is, but could you make sure that the includes > that are used to built the kernel are up to date? You are building with > the > buildkernel target and not "the old way", right? Also, if you build just > the > module, the build might pick up the includes from /usr/include instead of > src/sys ... > > > Jack > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:30:52AM -0800, Nick Rogers wrote: > > > > > I guess the problem comes from multi-queue support. The drbr > > > > > interface is implemented with inline function so em(4)/igb(4) may > > > > > have to define ALTQ to the header. I have not tested the patch(no > > > > > time at this moment) but would you give it try? > > > > > > > > > > I tried the patch and it did not work. > > > > > > You rebuilt kernel, right? Rebuilding kernel module has no effect. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org > " > > > > > > !DSPAM:4b686584144321871135632! > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea1002021339i3801fc4bw736fa01188f60290>