Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:33:45 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
To:        Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r267935 - head/sys/dev/e1000 (with work around?)
Message-ID:  <1109209778.35732953.1410564825048.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I wrote:
> The patches are in 10.1. I thought his report said 10.0 in the message.
> 
> If Mike is running a recent stable/10 or releng/10.1, then it has been
> patched for this and NFS should work with TSO enabled. If it doesn't,
> then something else is broken.
Oops, I looked and I see Mike was testing r270560 (which would have both
the patches). I don't have an explanation why TSO and 64K rsize, wsize
would cause a hang, but does appear it will exist in 10.1 unless it
gets resolved.

Mike, one difference is that, even with the patches the driver will be
copying the transmit mbuf list via m_defrag() to 32 MCLBYTE clusters
when using 64K rsize, wsize.
If you can reproduce the hang, you might want to look at how many mbuf
clusters are allocated. If you've hit the limit, then I think that
would explain it.

rick



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1109209778.35732953.1410564825048.JavaMail.root>