netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?

To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?
From: rick jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:58:54 -0800
In-reply-to: <20050121204418.2070d76d.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <41F1516D.5010101@hp.com> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <41F163AD.5070400@hp.com> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@davemloft.net> <41F17B7E.2020002@hp.com> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@davemloft.net> <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> <41F18927.5020607@hp.com> <20050121204418.2070d76d.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Jan 21, 2005, at 8:44 PM, David S. Miller wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote:

Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value? The
sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely. The
initial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS.

The value "0" behaves the same as "1".

Alas I'm away from my traces at the moment, but I do recall seeing different behaviour with 0 than with one - with one the TSO sends started at 3*1448, with the divisor at zero they started at what appeared to be 2*1448.


I'll see if I can get to the traces before monday and send them along.

rick jones
there is no rest for the wicked, yet the virtuous have no pillows


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>