Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 20:44:59 -0800 From: Nick Rogers <ncrogers@gmail.com> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: pyunyh@gmail.com, jfv@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: em(4) + ALTQ broken Message-ID: <147432021002052044h591c4050ka7f39b4ec739f2a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201002050351.12270.max@love2party.net> References: <147432021001310037n1b67f01bx4b4e8781321cea8@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea1002021443t1c298528i2df3cf40269c733@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea1002021447t1067ee42gc59b25216270459b@mail.gmail.com> <201002050351.12270.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I applied drbr_altq.diff to the e1000 driver (sys/dev/e1000) from HEAD on top of 8.0-RELEASE kernel sources. It appears to have fixed the immediate problem where queues simply don't work on em interfaces. Thanks a bunch. I suppose further review and testing by others would be greatly appreciated from my point of view. I am trying to decide on a relatively stable 8.0 kernel with working em(4) + ALTQ to put into production on 100 or so installations. Are you guys more comfortable with the HEAD sys/dev/e1000 + this patch on top of 8.0-RELEASE, or e1000 from 7.2 on top of 8.0-RELEASE? So far I am having good luck with the later. Thanks again for your contributions! On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> wrote: > Okay ... attached is a patch to fix this for em(4) (and lay the groundwork > to > fix it for other drbr_* consumer as well). I have tested it in VirtualBox, > but don't have real hardware to check for non-ALTQ performance or other > regressions. > > Test, comments and review appreciated. > > -- > Max >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?147432021002052044h591c4050ka7f39b4ec739f2a>