Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:22:01 -0800 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com>, "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org>, Joshua Boyd <boydjd@jbip.net>, Pyun YongHyeon <yongari@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: em interface slow down on 8.0R Message-ID: <2a41acea1001261222v2101f3fbgd095a8f9e9b3e759@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100126201258.GK1187@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <95D3CB82-BC44-491D-86E4-5CB82F89C0FC@nokia.com> <20100125182257.GG1187@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <147432021001251038r69393ab3m1a797e58f9fa905a@mail.gmail.com> <02307620-ECDC-4E8B-A5B1-FF8491E226C4@nokia.com> <33c6b0bc1001252031k508426bfh25fad65e9223d87@mail.gmail.com> <147432021001260900p60ed1804t97392d2dff5cd244@mail.gmail.com> <147432021001260914x6e5e1b41n4146904ead9d9108@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea1001260940sf89512ar5514cee9bb08fd9@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea1001261155v20a54d39qdc5ad7b9ac88291d@mail.gmail.com> <20100126201258.GK1187@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, what our testers do is assign BOTH an ipv4 and ipv6 address to an interface, then netperf runs over both, I don't know the internal details but I assume both TCP and UDP are going over ipv6. Prior to your change there is IPv6 handling code in the tx checksum routine, so I assume the hardware offload for that works. With your patch if I disable TXCSUM on the interface then it will work... but before your change it works with that on. So, am I missing something? Cheers, Jack On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:55:00AM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: > > I've tried this patch, and it completely breaks IPv6 offloads, which DO > work > > btw, > > our testers have a netperf stress test that does both ipv4 and ipv6, and > > that test > > fails 100% after this change. > > > > I could go hacking at it myself but as its your code Pyun would you like > to > > resolve this issue? > > > > I wonder how you could test IPv6 checksum offloading/TSO as FreeBSD > does not have that capability yet. Do we already have that > capability? I vaguely remember there was an effort to bring the > support in but I don't know current status. If we have the > capability I would have to update all other drivers that can do > IPv6 checksum offloading/TSO for IPv6. > > > Regards, > > > > Jack > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > No, it hasn't, I need time to look it over and be convinced of what he > was > > > doing. > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> looks like the patch mentioned in kern/141843 has not been applied to > the > > >> tree? > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Is it advisable to patch 8.0-RELEASE kernel sources with the latest > > >> > (CURRENT) em driver (i.e., src/sys/dev/e1000)? It looks like there > are > > >> some > > >> > updates to the driver since 8.0-RELEASE that may fix some problems? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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" > > >> > > > > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea1001261222v2101f3fbgd095a8f9e9b3e759>