Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> we cannot do hardware TSO in a bridge. Maybe we could if all
> bridge members support it.
Just a note that I've discussed another "if all bridge members" case
with dlg; switch drivers eventually knowing to do bridge offloading.
//Peter
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:35:06PM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 19:26:07 +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:15:31AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > > Would it be possible to move the forward declaration of struct tdb
> > > to netinet/tcp_var.h so
On Tue, 16 May 2023 19:26:07 +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:15:31AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > Would it be possible to move the forward declaration of struct tdb
> > to netinet/tcp_var.h so it is not required in every driver?
>
> sure
Thanks, that looks better
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:15:31AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> Would it be possible to move the forward declaration of struct tdb
> to netinet/tcp_var.h so it is not required in every driver?
sure
Index: dev/pci/if_ix.c
===
RCS
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:48:24AM +0200, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> I've tested this diff with x552 and it's working as expected.
>
> ix0 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 "Intel X552 SFP+" rev 0x00, msix, 4 queues,
> ix1 at pci5 dev 0 function 1 "Intel X552 SFP+" rev 0x00, msix, 4 queues,
My test setup
On 15.5.2023. 19:39, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 11:39:01PM +0200, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
>> I've tested this on openbsd box with 4 iperf3's. 2 for ip4 and 2 for ip6
>> and with 16 tcp streams per iperf. When testing over ix(4) there is big
>> differences in output
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 11:39:01PM +0200, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> I've tested this on openbsd box with 4 iperf3's. 2 for ip4 and 2 for ip6
> and with 16 tcp streams per iperf. When testing over ix(4) there is big
> differences in output performance. When testing ix/veb/vport there is
>
Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > Do not set ifconfig ix tso, this flag does not work correctly.
> >
> > Are there plans for that flag? Remove it? Use it? Only document as
> > deprecated? Also print a deprecation message if used?
>
> It will be removed. No need to overcomplicate it with deprecation
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:42:20AM +, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > Do not set ifconfig ix tso, this flag does not work correctly.
>
> Are there plans for that flag? Remove it? Use it? Only document as
> deprecated? Also print a deprecation message if used?
It will be
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Do not set ifconfig ix tso, this flag does not work correctly.
Are there plans for that flag? Remove it? Use it? Only document as
deprecated? Also print a deprecation message if used?
Thanks
//Peter
On 14.5.2023. 11:24, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 01:32:07AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>> I have not yet investigated where the dropped counter 83 comes from.
>> If you see that also, please report what you did.
> This is an ENOBUFS error in this chunk.
>
> /*
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 01:32:07AM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> I have not yet investigated where the dropped counter 83 comes from.
> If you see that also, please report what you did.
This is an ENOBUFS error in this chunk.
/* network interface hardware will do TSO */
if
Hi,
I merged jan@'s ix(4) TSO diff with my software TSO diff. It seems
to work.
# netstat -s -p tcp | grep TSO
1 output TSO packet software chopped
1824861 output TSO packets hardware processed
31668597 output TSO packets generated
13 matches
Mail list logo
