Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:26:19 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8.0-RELEASE-p3: 4k jumbo mbuf cluster exhaustion Message-ID: <AANLkTi=t%2BnG8isp1nf2aBec%2BFwomApNt0NBPO8LqZ%2B=9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100822222746.GC6013@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <AANLkTikrbCFHz-CnuYcgH2JzpeH5hob0Aa2y5dwn3Hvv@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikYMU=wML_z=HDnkUF1PGYMVa1q-QWTrkxD%2B7EP@mail.gmail.com> <20100822222746.GC6013@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 August 2010 06:27, Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> wrote: > I recall there was SIOCSIFCAP ioctl handling bug in bce(4) on 8.0 so > it might also disable IFCAP_TSO4/IFCAP_TXCSUM/IFCAP_RXCSUM when yo > disabled RX checksum offloading. But I can't explain how checksum > offloading could be related with the growth of 4k jumbo buffers. Neither can I! I'm trying to come up with a reproduction method that doesn't involve "put box on the internet, push clients through it, wait." > There was a lot of changes in bce(4) since 8.0-RELEASE. I vaguely > guess your issue could be related with header split feature of > bce(4) which was now disabled. Are you using jumbo > frame/ZERO_COPY_SOCKETS with bce(4)? Nope. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=t%2BnG8isp1nf2aBec%2BFwomApNt0NBPO8LqZ%2B=9>