Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:50:44 +1200
From:      Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: TSO, SMP and the em driver.
Message-ID:  <20060917065044.GA57195@heff.fud.org.nz>
In-Reply-To: <200609151014.36785.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <E1GN5FA-00085C-CJ@hetzner.co.za> <20060915102228.GK27667@FreeBSD.org> <450A8467.5050405@freebsd.org> <200609151014.36785.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:14:35AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 15 September 2006 06:45, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:46:22AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > B> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:08:44AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > B> > On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:14, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > B> > > Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > > B> > > > At 12:43 PM 9/12/2006, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > B> 
> > > B> I'm not sure it's worth worrying about with GbE hardware.  Just disable
> > > B> TSO in promiscuous mode.  Where TSO is going to really matter is 10GbE.
> > > B> No supporting TSO in some configurations with GbE doesn't seem like a
> > > B> big deal to me.
> > > 
> > > Yes, makeing TSO and promisc mutually exclusive would be fine.
> > 
> > There is no point in disabling TSO in when the card is in promisc mode.
> > Promisc mode only affects the receive path where TSO doesn't do a thing,
> > it is only used on the send path.
> 
> The real fix is that the network stack including bpf(4) needs to be aware
> of VLANs that aren't stored in the packet data (mtag, mbuf header,
> wherever).  If you fixed bridging and bpf to recoginize VLAN IDs in metadata
> and handle them then em(4) wouldn't need this hack.  Also, if my understanding
> is correct, this hack is really needed for _any_ ethernet driver that supports
> vlan tagging in hardware unless we fix the stack consumers.

I have a patch ready that makes the bridge use the new ether_vlan field
when it gets committed.


Andrew



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060917065044.GA57195>