Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:56:23 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Sami Halabi <sodynet1@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: TSO Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomgpCYjLs4SDK0qGii-eubGHXaji3UBKbtEkfaKUm8nAA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAEW%2BogYVto3rr6LHVsG4rOuyhXt3ZWbH2kWNk-1kAmwDKROEqg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEW%2BogYVto3rr6LHVsG4rOuyhXt3ZWbH2kWNk-1kAmwDKROEqg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, TSO is needed for high throughput TCP work. The cost of output packet handling (lookups, pcb locks) and the CPU use in tcp_output() is quite high. It'd be great to fix that though. :) -a On 26 February 2014 09:37, Sami Halabi <sodynet1@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I'm reading (almost) all mailing emails in mailig list... > > Almost every / many problem in network performancr / packets loss ended up > suggesting disabling TSO. > > I wonder why.. Is it a bug in the implementation? Or bybdesign? > What are the usecases that TSO is needed? Myabe it should be disabled bt > default? > > Thanks in advance, > Sami > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomgpCYjLs4SDK0qGii-eubGHXaji3UBKbtEkfaKUm8nAA>