From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 15 11:39:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5FDC47; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cu01176a.smtpx.saremail.com (cu01176a.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.150.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BBA62C61; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.2.2] (izaro.sarenet.es [192.148.167.11]) by proxypop03.sare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DAA59DCA22; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:39:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Fix Emulex "oce" driver in CURRENT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Borja Marcos In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:39:19 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3B641ED6-58E7-4C7F-A98F-A56FEA59F79D@sarenet.es> References: <453BA9EC-BB63-4258-8141-847F41315E1E@sarenet.es> <6C8CF68D-68E2-4168-AA0A-6A629D363371@sarenet.es> To: Stefano Garzarella X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , freebsd-current , Luigi Rizzo , Xin LI X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:39:31 -0000 On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > So, asking for spiritual counsel now. Would you use this driver in a = production environment instead of the 747 version downloaded from = Emulex? I think the latter is giving slightly better performance but, = anyway, I disable LRO and TSO because I see a horrible impact on NFS = performance. >=20 >=20 > I made a diff between the two versions (CURRENT and 747) and I saw = that the main difference is in the management of buf_ring through drbr = API. > In the CURRENT driver they use a new function drbr_peek() instead of = drbr_dequeue() and I think this is better. > However, even in the 747 version seems to have the problem of the lack = of locking. Well, definitely you saved my cake! So it was still a tickling time = bomb. Thank you very much! Borja.