Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:07:36 -0800
From:      John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>
To:        Sami Halabi <sodynet1@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: TSO
Message-ID:  <20140226180736.GV92037@funkthat.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
Sami Halabi wrote this message on Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 19:37 +0200:
> 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?

It looks like most of the problems are in drivers that don't handle
packets with a large number of segments properly...  The problem is
that some drivers limit to how segments a packet can be broken into, and
then if they receive such a packet, instead of doing their darnest to
deliver it, they drop it...

There are some patches that help address the issue...

Drivers should complain more loudly when a packet gets dropped by the
driver, since it is likely that the OS may retry the same packet,
just to have it fail, though sometimes it'll try a different set, and
it might go through, so all the user may notice is a slight lag if
they notice anything at all...

-- 
  John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 415 225 5579

     "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140226180736.GV92037>