Re: LRO support for IPv6
On 23. May 2012, at 08:22 , Venkat Duvvuru wrote: Folks, Can somebody please explain me why tcp checsum calculation is mandated in the freebsd network stack (tcp_input---in6_cksum) albeit the card supports it? Probably Steve is the right person who can answer this. Just for public reference; we talked offline. The code simply was never done and let's see how much of it I can get into the tree the next 48 hours. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
Folks, Can somebody please explain me why tcp checsum calculation is mandated in the freebsd network stack (tcp_input---in6_cksum) albeit the card supports it? Probably Steve is the right person who can answer this. /Venkat On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Venkat Duvvuru venkatduvvuru...@gmail.com wrote: Ok. I found the reason for the throughput drop in case of IPv6. Reason is that the tcp check sum calculation is mandated in case of IPv6 irrespective of whether the card is doing it or not (checksum offload). Is there a reason why freebsd is doing it that way? /Venkat On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote: LRO is a huge win for 10G (as is TSO on the TX side), so odds are good its behind the drop, in any case you'll be able to test that soon :) Jack On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Venkat Duvvuru venkatduvvuru...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the response. I observed that there is a significant performance drop in case of IPv6 on the rx side. While I'm able to hit line rate ~9.5 Gbps on a 10gb NIC for IPv4..I could only get ~6 Gbps on the rx front for IPv6...However tx for IPv6 is on par with IPv4 hitting almost line rates. Could this be because of lack of LRO6?? Note: hwpmc 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.orgwrote: 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 that works with forwarding eh :) That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the LRO queuing function in case forwarding is turned on for that address family; a proper solution for long term can than be done whenever we feel like it. The above we should have done years ago;) 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 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
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 version which has LRO support for IPv6? I'm using 9.0-RELEASE and I see that tcp_lro_rx is failing. Please confirm. /Venkat ___ freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
On 22. May 2012, at 16:50 , Jack Vogel wrote: 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
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 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
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 that works with forwarding eh :) That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the LRO queuing function in case forwarding is turned on for that address family; a proper solution for long term can than be done whenever we feel like it. The above we should have done years ago;) 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 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
Thanks for the response. I observed that there is a significant performance drop in case of IPv6 on the rx side. While I'm able to hit line rate ~9.5 Gbps on a 10gb NIC for IPv4..I could only get ~6 Gbps on the rx front for IPv6...However tx for IPv6 is on par with IPv4 hitting almost line rates. Could this be because of lack of LRO6?? Note: hwpmc 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 that works with forwarding eh :) That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the LRO queuing function in case forwarding is turned on for that address family; a proper solution for long term can than be done whenever we feel like it. The above we should have done years ago;) 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 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
LRO is a huge win for 10G (as is TSO on the TX side), so odds are good its behind the drop, in any case you'll be able to test that soon :) Jack On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Venkat Duvvuru venkatduvvuru...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the response. I observed that there is a significant performance drop in case of IPv6 on the rx side. While I'm able to hit line rate ~9.5 Gbps on a 10gb NIC for IPv4..I could only get ~6 Gbps on the rx front for IPv6...However tx for IPv6 is on par with IPv4 hitting almost line rates. Could this be because of lack of LRO6?? Note: hwpmc 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 that works with forwarding eh :) That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the LRO queuing function in case forwarding is turned on for that address family; a proper solution for long term can than be done whenever we feel like it. The above we should have done years ago;) 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 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: LRO support for IPv6
Ok. I found the reason for the throughput drop in case of IPv6. Reason is that the tcp check sum calculation is mandated in case of IPv6 irrespective of whether the card is doing it or not (checksum offload). Is there a reason why freebsd is doing it that way? /Venkat On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Jack Vogel jfvo...@gmail.com wrote: LRO is a huge win for 10G (as is TSO on the TX side), so odds are good its behind the drop, in any case you'll be able to test that soon :) Jack On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Venkat Duvvuru venkatduvvuru...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the response. I observed that there is a significant performance drop in case of IPv6 on the rx side. While I'm able to hit line rate ~9.5 Gbps on a 10gb NIC for IPv4..I could only get ~6 Gbps on the rx front for IPv6...However tx for IPv6 is on par with IPv4 hitting almost line rates. Could this be because of lack of LRO6?? Note: hwpmc 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 that works with forwarding eh :) That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the LRO queuing function in case forwarding is turned on for that address family; a proper solution for long term can than be done whenever we feel like it. The above we should have done years ago;) 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 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. I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other real life things currently. I'll also bring TSO6, etc... -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
