From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 12 11:44:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AEE16A41F for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7A713C45B for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 14so1367370nzn for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:44:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=aBVof4yQH0GAivweFqNXyIQvjOPmmxUXZxJ10fluPpD53F1lWz5eJBAHP3gYwFfh7IvWDE2f+irw1wmm3zvJ8JgejFVJN6GkLPhctvaLSY1/qJxiExE/ho5XGUaJywPICuexdLiIBQzooSQV4GGoPOwKO44aEHq1o5sc9KU4HZ4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Dh/lyTJDcDPoalldfc+vmC/bzJ52YkDirfiEgpJ+jLnjisrdyiUhSIQ0rcinTo/8HxJchRiJTZxMuTtw9wqkv2RrLgPsMCLGMYScRgYiKcThLYamd5mfvM7RMyq2DO1G/MnZ6ZvSMpqslGMsHJxvxtLozdavQgT4EWvA93YmTDk= Received: by 10.114.149.2 with SMTP id w2mr6611357wad.1181648665273; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m40sm10515190waf.2007.06.12.04.44.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l5CBiJZv047923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:44:19 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l5CBiI7f047922 for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:44:18 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:44:18 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20070612114418.GI44998@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <20070529121837.GA12808@cdnetworks.co.kr> <20070602081009.GB1140@cdnetworks.co.kr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070602081009.GB1140@cdnetworks.co.kr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Subject: Re: CFT: re(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:44:26 -0000 On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:10:09PM +0900, To freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:18:37PM +0900, To freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've committed a fix for bus_dma(9) bug which resulted in poor Tx > > performance on TSO enabled re(4) driver. With the fix and revised > > re(4) I got more sane performance on re(4). Because there are too many > > hardwares that rely on re(4) I'd like to hear any success or failure > > reports before revised re(4) hits the tree. > > For PCIe hardware users it would be great if you can submit > > performance numbers for stock re(4) and revised one. The revised > > re(4) can be found at the following URL. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/re.HEAD.patch > > > > Note, you need latest kernel to get correct performance numbers. > > > > I've fixed a bug which resulted in checksum offload bug and update the > patch. It should have no ression. > We're very close to code freeze and have too many consumers of re(4). > Without users success report it would be impossible to commit the patch > before branching 7. Since I don't have 8139C+ based ones, I'm also > interested in how it works on 8139C+ hardwares. > I received few feedbacks on overhauled re(4). Without this patch TSO would be unstable and you would get "can't map defragmented mbuf" messages on console under heavy load. If I couldn't get more feedbacks I'll disable TSO support before code freeze. -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon