On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Jesse Brandeburg
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:35:55 -0700
>> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sowmini Varadhan
>>> wrote:
>>> > On (03/30/16 10:12), Alexander Duyck w
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Jesse Brandeburg
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:35:55 -0700
> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sowmini Varadhan
>> wrote:
>> > On (03/30/16 10:12), Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> >> Yeah. The patch was sort of a knee-jerk reaction to be
On (03/30/16 13:15), Eric Dumazet wrote:
> You might try netperf -t TCP_SENDFILE -- -m 150
>
> to let netperf use sendfile() on small frags.
that still did not reproduce it but let me try beating on
that approach with more permutations.
BTW, another data-point that may help debug this: even with
On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 16:09 -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (03/30/16 12:41), Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > This gets "Even Uglier", I've turned off all offloads at my receiver,
> > enabled calling skb_linearize on *all* frames, which works fine for
> > scp, but the receiver shows > MSS sized fra
On (03/30/16 12:41), Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> This gets "Even Uglier", I've turned off all offloads at my receiver,
> enabled calling skb_linearize on *all* frames, which works fine for
> scp, but the receiver shows > MSS sized frames on the wire for
> rds-stress traffic.
fwiw, I was not able to
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:35:55 -0700
Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sowmini Varadhan
> wrote:
> > On (03/30/16 10:12), Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> Yeah. The patch was sort of a knee-jerk reaction to being told that
> >> the patch referenced caused a regression. From w
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:12:51 -0700
Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sowmini Varadhan
> wrote:
> > On (03/29/16 23:44), Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> This patch has been sanity checked only. I cannot yet guarantee it
> >> resolves the original issue that was reported. I'
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
> On (03/30/16 10:12), Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> Yeah. The patch was sort of a knee-jerk reaction to being told that
>> the patch referenced caused a regression. From what I can tell that
>> is not the case as I am also seeing the Tx hang
On (03/30/16 10:12), Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Yeah. The patch was sort of a knee-jerk reaction to being told that
> the patch referenced caused a regression. From what I can tell that
> is not the case as I am also seeing the Tx hangs when I run the test
> with the frames being linearized.
I'm n
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
> On (03/29/16 23:44), Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> This patch has been sanity checked only. I cannot yet guarantee it
>> resolves the original issue that was reported. I'll try to get a
>> reproduction environment setup tomorrow but I don't
On (03/29/16 23:44), Alexander Duyck wrote:
> This patch has been sanity checked only. I cannot yet guarantee it
> resolves the original issue that was reported. I'll try to get a
> reproduction environment setup tomorrow but I don't know how long that
> should take.
I tried this out with rds-st
This patch addresses a bug introduced based on my interpretation of the
XL710 datasheet. Specifically section 8.4.1 states that "A single transmit
packet may span up to 8 buffers (up to 8 data descriptors per packet
including both the header and payload buffers)." It then later goes on to
say tha
12 matches
Mail list logo
