Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+TSO\s+Reloaded\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+TSO\s+Reloaded\s*$/: 52 ]

Total 52 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 23:07:31 -0700; Ok, here it is, first draft of the new TSO handling I promised so long ago :-) I was lazy and waited until today to implement the entire thing. It works with basic testing over tg3. I'll discuss the; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00184.html (74,117 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:35:32 -0700; Is anyone testing this or is everyone too scared? :-) A lot of people wanted this TSO stuff fixed, so I spent time implementing the fix. Yet nobody seems interested enough to even say "it works" or "; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00252.html (8,198 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: aber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:56:25 -0500; I can give it a quick sniff on e1000 and r8169 (on amd64), though only to verify that its works (ie, no real perf). Is that acceptable? Thanks, Jon; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00254.html (9,140 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:11:41 +1000; When I can get my machines booting to userspace Im definitely going to try it out :) Anton; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00258.html (9,094 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 16:18:29 -0700; David S. Miller wrote: Is anyone testing this or is everyone too scared? :-) A lot of people wanted this TSO stuff fixed, so I spent time implementing the fix. Yet nobody seems interested enough to e; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00260.html (9,658 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: niv@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:14:39 -0700; Do you need anything besides that early-packet fix from Herbert?; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00261.html (9,427 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 16:16:10 -0700; It's off by default, "ethtool -K eth0 tso on" is necessary. I'll change that soon. Or do you have a chip revision that really can't do TSO?; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00262.html (9,913 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:03:17 +1000; Nope. I'll spin the patch up now and report back. Anton; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00267.html (9,350 bytes)
9. RE: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:20:56 -0700; We will be testing on 10GbE NICs in the next couple weeks; will let you BTW - any plans for IPv6 support?; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00277.html (9,703 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: n@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:30:52 -0700; What exactly does your NIC expect? Do you use the NETIF_F_HW_CSUM flag to indicate generic checksumming support? Otherwise, there is no other way to support ipv6 checksum offload at the moment, and t; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00278.html (10,266 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 22:53:09 -0500; It worked fine for both r8169 and e1000 on my amd64 box (running 2.6.12-rc3-mm2).; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00279.html (9,375 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:36:53 +1000; Hi Dave, I fired off socklib (just a TCP stream test) and things look much better. I dumped the size of the data+frags for each packet that the e1000 created. It looks like frags are working in multi; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00281.html (11,017 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: nton@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:45:16 +1000; With a 9000 byte MTU I see page sized frags as expected. There are still some pages broken in two which is interesting. Anton data: 66 frags: 3584 4096 1268 2816 4096 2032 4 data: 66 frags: 2048 409; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00282.html (10,331 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: nton@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 23:13:45 -0700; I know what is causing the breaks, it's the "cache line align" crap in tcp_sendmsg(). Comment out this alignment code in net/ipv4/tcp.c and see how it goes: /* If page is cached, align * offset to L1; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00283.html (10,257 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: ou@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:10:05 +1000; Nice work! Its looking much better now. Anton 1500 MTU: eth0 data: 74 frags: eth0 data: 66 frags: 2892 4 eth0 data: 66 frags: 1200 1692 4 eth0 data: 66 frags: 2400 492 4 eth0 data: 66 frags: 2892 4; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00285.html (11,701 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: n@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 01:19:54 -0700; Great, thanks for testing. BTW: What does this "66 frags" mean? Is it "tso_segs" from the SKB? skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags can never be that large (MAX_SKB_FRAGS is (65536/PAGE_SIZE + 2)) so it can't b; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00287.html (9,961 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 18:36:59 +1000; Nah I just dump the skb mapping then the subsequent frags. So 66 is the size of the header. In this case there is only 2 frags. Anton; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00288.html (10,096 bytes)
18. RE: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:09:17 -0700; Our ASIC supports ipv6 CSUM and TSO (and header splitting) even if extension headers are present, but I suspect the majority ipv6-capable NICs will not implement this; the stack needs to query NIC h; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00301.html (11,607 bytes)
19. RE: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: oss Combs <rocombs@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 21:48:51 -0700; I guess some NIC vendors choose to support a single pass/fail flag (rather than a 16-bit checksum field), because increasing the size of receive descriptors may not come for free. Our older card sup; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00349.html (10,598 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: . Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:26:09 -0400; Though it may be moot by now, I just ran some tests of my own with this patch. This was on a dual 2.4 GHz Xeon booted with a UP kernel, running iperf over an e1000 at a 1500 byte MTU. I measured idle; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00679.html (9,228 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]