From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 26 20:36:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C72106566B; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:36:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089A08FC0C; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:36:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so1269870eyd.9 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:36:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mPcEzT82vh84lMN50ghFkmFeOXRxyo4+eCT/MQtisro=; b=M0WkYHbEE+mNBEGVKJdOib7mvkb5p+nwZ0q9f55dxadgL7DtUItHlY45+0OyjK4Kpg gmGOws8Yf4QeWfNrxeN58zofo2/hvFygbEV3qeri3rpqvhvpvUgSCTOgg8gPsMFp2b1I d/jR0WeaEDn0Gj235DR/kE1rArKyp0RCtnHIs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=YNGifYD+cbK8QcAoPpCoxpGZUFV6pzQ0OtJ2rlzJmMUhJ1qWuGPVaitXiRNlhwcP9q Ip95hwyUWCtzRtT1IxEIy4yjmR+m47GbRpQA+70dcRa2t9DFjF0ZJ+9X+wyiYj1L2VSz 4nsD1/TxPuCbjA8ZRlhTs2GNMTHlp/ZNCSg20= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.169.201 with SMTP id n51mr316860wel.209.1264538182158; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:36:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20100126203322.GL1187@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <20100125182257.GG1187@michelle.cdnetworks.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> <2a41acea1001261222v2101f3fbgd095a8f9e9b3e759@mail.gmail.com> <20100126203322.GL1187@michelle.cdnetworks.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:36:22 -0800 Message-ID: <2a41acea1001261236h2846787ft756433653e273ecc@mail.gmail.com> From: Jack Vogel To: pyunyh@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Nick Rogers , "stable@freebsd.org" , Joshua Boyd , Pyun YongHyeon Subject: Re: em interface slow down on 8.0R X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:36:24 -0000 Great, if you can get the changes to me quickly I'd like to incorporate them. BTW, I have merged your igb changes into my code and its very stable, should see that checked in for 7.3 shortly. Thanks for your hard work Pyun! Jack On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:22:01PM -0800, Jack Vogel wrote: > > 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? > > > > Hmm, then I guess there is bug in the patch. Apparently upper stack > already computed checksum for IPv6 so the patch should not try to > offload IPv6 traffic again. I'll see the patch again. > Thanks for valuable input. :-) > > > Cheers, > > > > Jack > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Pyun YongHyeon > 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 > 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 > > > 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 > > > 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" > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >