it to be IGB_LEGACY_TX or
so,
and that could be defined in the Makefile.
Would this help?
Jack
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Nick Rogers ncrog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Gleb Smirnoff gleb
AM, Pieper, Jeffrey E
jeffrey.e.pie...@intel.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org]
On Behalf Of Barney Cordoba
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:51 AM
To: Jack Vogel; Nick Rogers
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Clement
You are confusing an internal driver struct with sysctl, there is no ability
to do what you are trying to do in the driver, well, not without your own
personal hack.
There has been some discussion about the issue but as of right now
only validated and approved SFP hardware is supported.
Jack
Thanks John, I'm incorporating your changes into my source tree. I also
plan on changing the
glue between mq_start and mq_start_locked on igb after some UDP testing
that was done, and
believe ixgbe should follow suit. Results there have shown the latency is
just too high if I only use
the
The following reply was made to PR kern/176446; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com
To: John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org
Cc: FreeBSD Net freebsd-net@freebsd.org, bug-follo...@freebsd.org,
Mike Karels m...@karels.net
Subject: Re: kern/176446: [netinet] [patch
Try setting your queues to 1, run some tests, then try setting
your queues to 2, then to 4... its called tuning, and rather than
just pontificating about it, which Barney so loves to do, you can
discover what works best. I ran tests last week preparing for a
new driver version and found the best
If you don't use TSO you will hurt your TX performance significantly from
the tests that I've run. What exactly is the device you are using, I don't
have the source in front of me now, but I'm almost sure that the limit is
not 64K but 256K, or are you using some ancient version of the driver?
Yes, I checked: #define IXGBE_TSO_SIZE 262140
So, the driver is not limiting you to 64K assuming you are using a
version of recent vintage.
Jack
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't use TSO you will hurt your TX performance significantly from
Hmmm, so its the stack, can that be easily increased Andre?
Regards,
Jack
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Andre Oppermann an...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 04.05.2013 22:47, Jack Vogel wrote:
Yes, I checked: #define IXGBE_TSO_SIZE 262140
So, the driver is not limiting you to 64K assuming
...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't use TSO you will hurt your TX performance significantly from
the tests that I've run. What exactly is the device you are using, I
don't
have the source in front of me now, but I'm almost sure
--- On *Sat, 5/4/13, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com* wrote:
From: Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Is there any way to limit the amount of data in an mbuf chain
submitted to a driver?
To: Richard Sharpe realrichardsha...@gmail.com
Cc: FreeBSD Net freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd
laurie_jennings_1...@yahoo.com wrote:
Can you outline the changes? Anything with the general processing? I have
to make
a case to hold off a deployment.
and what happened to 9, 10, and 11?
Laurie
--- On *Fri, 5/17/13, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com* wrote:
From: Jack Vogel jfvo
There will be a driver update soon with the way it should be done, it will
be in the core driver
code and not as here in the shared code.
Regards,
Jack
PS Oh, and the email address should be 'free...@intel.com' now rather than
freebsdnic, it
still ultimately just gets to me however.
On Sun,
How is adding a small token 'down' with the command a 'PITA',
seems completely reasonable to me? Further, if you changed it
so if didn't bring the interface up you'd probably have a bunch of
people complain because that was the expected behavior :)
Jack
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Jason
A new version of ixgbe was committed this afternoon, 2.5.13, it now has a
compile-time
option of using unsupported optics. Keep in mind that if you have issues
I'm going to
ask if it can be reproduced with supported optics as a first step :)
Cheers,
Jack
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Haven
ethtool is GPL so I wouldn't expect it to show up around here :)
Implementing something like it for FreeBSD would be cool however, sometimes
sysctl just
seems clunky although its usually how i cope with driver things that might
be changed via
ethtool in Linux. Having to completely rebuild a
ix is just the device name, it is using the ixgbe driver. The driver should
print some kind of banner when it loads, what version of the OS and driver
are you using?? I have little experience testing nfs or samba so I am
not sure right off what might be the problem.
Jack
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Andre Oppermann an...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 27.07.2013 10:42, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
On 27.07.2013 12:15, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov
melif...@freebsd.org wrote:
This makes me curious because i believe
Sigh, this ends up being ugly I'm afraid. I need some time to look at code
and think about it.
Jack
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
I'm travelling back to San Jose today; poke me
What do you think about this change?
Cheers,
Jack
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Sigh, this ends up being ugly I'm afraid. I need some time to look at
code and think about
None that I can think of.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
... is there any reason we wouldn't want to have the TX and RX for a given
flow mapped to the same core?
-adrian
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Very interesting material Alexander, only had time to glance at it now,
will look in more
depth later, thanks!
Jack
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov
melif...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
Hello list!
There is a lot constantly raising discussions related to networking
Good with me Hiren
Jack
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM, hiren panchasara hi...@freebsd.org wrote:
I am going to commit this change in the weekend.
Let me know if there are any objections.
Thanks,
Hiren
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:51 AM, hiren panchasara hi...@freebsd.orgwrote:
+ jfv
Give the new driver I just committed to HEAD a try to verify/falsify a fix
please.
Regards,
Jack
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:23 AM, hiren panchasara
hiren.panchas...@gmail.com wrote:
Jack,
I am also seeing similar panics at $work on a couple weeks old STABLE-9.
Can you please look into
Good, and I'll get the map changes in after the weekend.
Jack
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:56:25AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
Give the new driver I just committed to HEAD a try to verify/falsify a
fix
please
...@hostpoint.chwrote:
(creating a new thread, because I'm no longer sure this is related to
Johan's thread that I originally used to discuss this)
On 27.02.2014, at 18:02, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I would make SURE that you have enough mbuf resources of whatever size
pool
that you are
using
:33, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
You did not make it explicit before, but I noticed in your dtrace info
that
you are using
lagg, its been the source of lots of problems, so take it out of the
setup
and see if this
queue problem still happens please.
Jack
Well, last year
There's only one reason RX structures fail, and that's insufficient mbuf
pool.
You will find the driver probably uses the 9K mbuf pool in that driver, so
look
at how many queues it wants to set up, how big your ring is, and do the
math.
Jack
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Wayne Hotmail
What he's saying is that the driver should not be using 9K mbuf clusters, I
thought
this had been changed but I see the code in HEAD is still using the larger
clusters
when you up the mtu. I will put it on my list to change with the next
update to HEAD.
What version of ixgbe are you using?
it to ixgbe..
As it stands I seem to not be having the problem now that I have disabled
TSO on ix0, but I still need more test runs to confirm - Which is also in
line (i think) with what you are all saying.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
What he's saying
different about memory allocation in 10 that is
making this an issue?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I strongly discourage anyone from disabling TSO on 10G, its necessary to
get the
performance one wants to see on the hardware.
Here is a patch to do what
Nick,
I'm very busy with some critical internal deadlines, I will look at this
when I can
come up for air, but please be patient.
Jack
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Nick Rogers ncrog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Nick Rogers ncrog...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I
I don't think we've ever tried this at Intel either. I had meant to check
the ixv code to
see if it had your code in it Luigi but got distracted, if it doesn't then
it obviously can't
work for the case of a VM.
I think with the new 40G VF driver, when that gets committed it might be
desirable to
Ya, it might be nice to do a bunch of cleanup like that, maybe once the
i40e
release happens I'll have some time to look into that.
Jack
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't
Is only one port a problem? When it gets into the state can you
do a sysctl dev.ix.X..
Jack
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Marcelo Gondim gon...@bsdinfo.com.br
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having problems with a 10GbE Intel X520-SR2 interface. After a running
time, the interface does not send or
What does a netstat -m show, I noticed you show no_desc counts on
all your queues, perhaps you don't have enough mbufs/clusters available?
Does your message log show any events or messages of significance?
I'm not sure about the module compatibility, Jeff would be better positioned
to answer
I had missed the fact that Alex turned this off in the Linux driver, sounds
to me like its the right thing to do for FreeBSD also.
Jack
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
Whilst digging into UDP receive side scaling on the intel ixgbe(4)
NIC, I
HEAD and TAIL are actually hw registers, the driver as it is configured
these
days never (and cannot) modify HEAD, There is an option to use the HEAD
register as a method of managing the RX side (called Head Writeback), but
in ixgbe this is not used, rather we rely on the DD bit of a descriptor to
Thanks Eric ! I'll commit it tomorrow since Eric approves :)
Jack
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Eric Joyner ricer...@gmail.com wrote:
I unofficially approve of it!
---
Eric Joyner
On Aug 16, 2014 12:21 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov
melif...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
Hello Jack!
Can
LEGACY is not there just because of ALTQ, but rather because there
have been significant customers of Intel that use the driver in OS versions
older than 8 that do not have the required interface.
Jack... going back to my sabbatical now :)
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Ermal Luçi
Hey Andrew,
Not heard of this before, but I'll check around.
Jack
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Boyer abo...@averesystems.comwrote:
Hello Jack,
I'm seeing an issue on 82599 controllers. When hardware RSC is used,
large VLAN packets arrive without the VP bit set, even though the
Interesting that you bring this up, I have just recently found that UDP TX
stressing
in my igb driver suffers when using the mq interface, using the old
interface its
much better, I've not been real happy about just reverting, my interim
solution has
been to make a compile option to the driver,
No, I told Mike I'd get it into 8.x, have just been busy, but will try
and get it pushed up in the queue.
Jack
2012/1/29 Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org
Hello, Mike.
You wrote 29 января 2012 г., 16:54:59:
My home server lost connection on em0 this night again. It was
persistent
Yes, the whole reason to get it into that stable is to make the 8.3 release.
Jack
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote:
On 1/29/12 7:21 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
No, I told Mike I'd get it into 8.x, have just been busy, but will try
and get it pushed up
, Jack Vogel wrote:
No, I told Mike I'd get it into 8.x, have just been busy, but will try
and get it pushed up in the queue.
Thanks Jack, I see its now MFC'd into RELENG_8!
em1: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection 7.3.2 port 0x2000-0x201f mem
0xb410-0xb411,0xb412-0xb4123fff irq
:)
Jack
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 01, 2012 4:50:23 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
Huh? I MFC'd into stable/8 does that show up as RELENG? And, I had
planned
to
put it into stable/9 just hadn't gotten to it yet. Making sure the
drivers
was that if if_snd fills up during a link_active == 0
period, stack never calls em_start again, because em does not
kick off tx when link becomes active again.
On 1/29/2012 9:51 PM, Jack Vogel wrote:
No, I told Mike I'd get it into 8.x, have just been busy, but will try
and get it pushed up in the queue
And assuming its from the release, please upgrade it to HEAD and try again.
Jack
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
are you running the driver from that release, or the -HEAD driver?
adrian
___
---Mike
On 2/22/2012 1:23 PM, Darren Baginski wrote:
Same problem on
FreeBSD srv-4-2.lab.local 9.0-STABLE FreeBSD 9.0-STABLE #2: Wed Feb 22
18:10:53 UTC 2012 r...@srv-4-2.lab.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
amd64
16.02.2012, 02:27, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com:
And assuming its
Using igb and/or ixgbe on a reasonably powered server requires 1K mbuf
clusters per MSIX vector,
that's how many are in a ring. Either driver will configure 8 queues on a
system with that many or more
cores, so 8K clusters per port...
My test engineer has a system with 2 igb ports, and 2 10G
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:09:46PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 21:52 +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
I have hit this problem recently, too.
Maybe the issue mostly/only exists on 32-bit systems.
It seems to help in some workloads, makes little difference in others, and
can even be
less performance in yet others. Its just not a feature that is a 100% win,
that's why its
not on by default. Try it and see.
Cheers,
Jack
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Rafael Ganascim
Increase the number of nmbclusters via sysctl, internally we set it to
262144.
Jack
2012/3/5 Özkan KIRIK ozkan.ki...@gmail.com
Hi,
I am using FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE-201105 amd64 snapshot.
System has about 200 ipfw rules.
There is 78 vlans assigned on igb3.
igb3 interface asserts as igb3:
I do not own, nor have ever touched the fxp driver, so don't really have an
opinion.
Jack
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi!
That's actually a really good catch!
yongari/jfv, what do you think?
Adrian
On 8 March 2012 16:01, Andreas Longwitz
Well, first thing to do is try the latest code, which is now in the 8.3
stream.
Jack
2012/3/12 Steven Hartland kill...@multiplay.co.uk
- Original Message - From: Коньков Евгений kes-...@yandex.ru
To: Steven Hartland kill...@multiplay.co.uk
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Sent: Monday,
Have you gotten rid of the rx descriptors exceeded problem?
Jack
2012/3/12 Steven Hartland kill...@multiplay.co.uk
**
If your referring to driver code, as mentioned in my initial post, already
tried that, no change :(
- Original Message -
*From:* Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com
for the driver.
We haven't rebooted to test that yet as the machine is under so little
network load I wouldn't expect raising it from 1024 to 2048 RX descriptors
to make any real difference, what do you recon?
Regards
Steve
- Original Message -
*From:* Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com
You have header split on?? I've not seen this before so something odd
is going on.
Jack
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Juli Mallett jmall...@freebsd.org wrote:
All,
On both stable/9 and trunk I see that with one of either the 82571EB
or 82574L I am flooded with messages in the form of:
Opps, you're right, hadn't had my coffee and was thinking about igb :)
Still have never seen this error before.
Jack
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
You have header split
Its looking like I will be able to provide him with some hardware.
Cheers,
Jack
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net wrote:
On 3/16/2012 11:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Can someone please just send me some recent em/igb hardware? I'll sit
down and find ways to
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com wrote:
Juli Mallett wrote this message on Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:03 -0800:
Which sounds slightly off-topic, except that dedicating loads of mbufs
to receive queues that will sit empty on the vast majority of systems
and
after all :)
Jack
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Juli Mallett jmall...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 13:33, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:08 PM, John-Mark Gurney j...@funkthat.com
wrote:
If we had some sort of tuning algorithm that would keep
I'm pretty sure that pciconf can give you this information, but you need to
use the right flags,
not to mention that you look at the correct device.
Some drivers, like ixgbe, will report this information to you when loading.
Jack
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Erik Trulsson
Make sure you have any firmware up to the latest available, if that doesn't
help
let me know and I'll check internally to see if there are any outstanding
issues
in shared code, that will be after the weekend.
Jack
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.comwrote:
The MAX value is something I set, not a hardware thing, it was based on
reports
I had from the various driver engineers in our org. If you increase the
ring size
you might run into other performance issues, however there's nothing
stopping
you from trying. Just be aware that its not something
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Lars Wilke l...@lwilke.de wrote:
Hi,
i first posted the following to the -stable list but got no
reply. Maybe someone here has some advice for me.
Switch: HP ProCurve 2910al
The switch does passive LACP
Motherboard: Supermicro X8DTN+-F
NIC: Quad
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Lars Wilke l...@lwilke.de wrote:
Hi Jack,
thanks for your response.
* Jack Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Lars Wilke l...@lwilke.de wrote:
Apr 13 08:53:07 san02 kernel: em1: Watchdog timeout -- resetting
Apr 13 08:53:07 san02
OH, well that's interesting to know, thanks John.
Jack
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:22 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:40:17 pm Sean Bruno wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:49 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
ok, good. that at least confirms that I correctly
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Sean Bruno sean...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 07:09 -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
OH, well that's interesting to know, thanks John.
Jack
Front end box looks pretty happy today at 8k descriptors.
http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno
Yes, I'm not sure what the actual hard limit is, will check that on Monday,
but
you can go over 4K, it was just a limit I created.
Jack
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Vijay Singh vijju.si...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, at my current employer we run with both rxd and txd cranked up to
32k
I suspect to do it right would involve having the stack/kernel have more
interaction with the driver/interface data, and this IS the way RSS was
envisioned to work. Its been talked about but hasn't happened so far.
Jack
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Juli Mallett jmall...@freebsd.org wrote:
The 82599 is and has been officially supported for some time, the manual
tends to lag, I will try and get it updated. In fact, given a choice I
would always
go with the 599. And yes, the X540 should be stable, its just not yet being
used as much yet.
Jack
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Julian
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
The 82599 is and has been officially supported for some time, the manual
tends to lag, I will try and get it updated. In fact, given a choice I
would always
go with the 599. And yes, the X540 should be stable, its just
Just so everyone is clear, the ixgbe driver in 8.3 has X540 support, as
well as HEAD,
stable/9 has not yet been MFC'd, its on my 'todo' list.
Jack
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny, since I own the driver, one would think I'd know :)
If you go look
This is 'missed packet count', the index has actually been misinterpreted
in the
code for a while, it was mistakenly associated with queues, but its really
per
packet buffer, and there are only more than one when there are multiple
traffic
classes (ala DCB). Even so, only MPC(0) should get
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Juli Mallett jmall...@freebsd.org wrote:
While we're on the subject, I've had some confusion for some time now:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Packets are missed when the receive FIFO has insufficient space to store
Juli is correct, the FIFO is not partitioned by the driver queues as they
exist in the current driver, its only seperated into the 3 parts I
mentioned.
Jack
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Juli Mallett jmall...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Vijay Singh
No, that's just standard setup stuff for MSIX.
Jack
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Vijay Singh vijju.si...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Juli is correct, the FIFO is not partitioned by the driver queues as they
exist in the current
Do you have LRO enabled? Also, you say it stops routing, do you mean it
passes non-routing traffic, or does everything stop?
Jack
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Kirk Davis kirk.da...@epsb.ca wrote:
Hi,
I am running FreeBSD 8.1p3 amd64 with 6Gb of RAM. This
is a router
The LRO code as it stands right now is IPV4 specific, it would be nice to
extend it, one of
many improvements that may get done at some point.
Jack
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Venkat Duvvuru
venkatduvvuru...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
Could somebody please tell about the base Freebsd
Oh, that's right, distracted with other projects and I forgot, now we just
need
to have an LRO that works with forwarding eh :)
You ROCK bz :)
Jack
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb b...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 22. May 2012, at 16:50 , Jack Vogel wrote:
The LRO code
profiling shows that most of the time is spent in the IPv6
stack code
/Venkat
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb b...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 22. May 2012, at 17:04 , Jack Vogel wrote:
Oh, that's right, distracted with other projects and I forgot, now we
just need
to have an LRO
LOL, the whole reason for making lem was to have it not change, but someone
that intent was lost on people, my failing i guess :) Of course, that
didn't mean
if its broken...
Jack
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:29 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:19:31 am Vijay
This was a special 'skew' of the 82599 done for Dell, and as they did not
request
FreeBSD it did not get called out in our internal development procedures,
however
you are the second person in a fairly short time who has requested it, and
after
checking things out there appears to be no reason not
Because of problems with forwarding when it was turned on, however this has
recently been fixed supposedly, if someone using the driver in an
environment
with forwarding could verify that there is no problem with it enabled I'd
be happy
to change it to be on by default.
Jack
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012
dev.igb.0.queue2.lro_queued:
14895 dev.igb.0.queue2.lro_flushed: 8200 dev.igb.0.queue3.lro_queued: 77
dev.igb.0.queue3.lro_flushed: 76
Just curious on why flushed and queued numbers did not seem to match.
ihsan
On Jul 8, 2012, at 12:26 AM, Jack Vogel wrote:
Because of problems with forwarding
No, that's probably wrong, but was not noticed because the legacy interrupt
path has been unused. The only time I've ever used it was during initial
development
and debug :) I'm taking the day off, but I'll take a closer look at the
code shortly.
Jack
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Vijay
Looks good to me Andrew, thanks.
Jack
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Boyer abo...@averesystems.comwrote:
This patch fixes some nits in the ixgbe driver statistics:
- Only read FCCRC and FCLAST on 82599+
- Store total_missed_rx in stats.mpctotal, and display it in a sysctl
-
Hmmm, this is odd, because the interrupt vector is not being re-enabled
unless
you are not scheduling the task, and when you are the interrupt isn't
enabled til
the end Something funny going on.
You could get contention due to mq_start however, you sure about where its
coming from?
Jack
better?
Jack
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmmm, this is odd, because the interrupt vector is not being re-enabled
unless
you are not scheduling the task, and when you are the interrupt isn't
enabled til
the end Something funny going on.
You could
Thanks John, am seeing this, just busy on another matter, will get to it
asap.
Jack
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:36 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:35:53 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, August 13, 2012 6:17:53 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
After looking
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Giulio Ferro au...@zirakzigil.org
wrote:
On 09/11/2012 11:34 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Sep 11, 2012 2:12 PM, Giulio Ferro au...@zirakzigil.org
mailto:au...@zirakzigil.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for checking. I've used lagg(4) with igb, just not on 9.x.
You're
So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be easy
enough to hack some code and try it if someone is so inclined?
Jack
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 1:45:12 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 17 September
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2012 4:00:04 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
So, you mean having them create their own buf ring I assume? Would be
easy
enough to hack some code and try it if someone is so inclined?
No, that would
Ah yes, at one time I was keeping the RX side lock when calling the stack,
but then as I recall that had problems, so the code now releases and
reaquires
as you can see. It results in some contention but I'm not sure that's
avoidable.
I've seen some LRO related panics on the 1G driver that may be
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:53 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:19:01 pm Vijay Singh wrote:
Vijay, can you test this to see if it helps with your test case?
Jack
John, apologies for the delay. I have some data to share now.
With your patch,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:40:58 pm Jack Vogel wrote:
Ah yes, at one time I was keeping the RX side lock when calling the
stack,
but then as I recall that had problems, so the code now releases and
reaquires
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Vijay Singh vijju.si...@gmail.com wrote:
Jack, I am wondering if this could be avoided if we can avoid to
enqueue the task OR re-enable interrupts if the other one is already
scheduled. Is this possible?
It seems to me that ixgbe_handle_que() should only
The ixgbe device will not get link until you have run init, so assign it an
address or just do an ifconfig up.
I have never used the driver using a passthru type setup but I believe its
been done successfully if
memory serves.
Jack
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Rémi Pauchet
1 - 100 of 603 matches
Mail list logo
