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.

41. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>; 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/msg01574.html (11,926 bytes)
42. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 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/msg01576.html (10,263 bytes)
43. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>; 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/msg01577.html (10,415 bytes)
44. RE: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 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/msg01590.html (11,659 bytes)
45. RE: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 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/msg01638.html (10,678 bytes)
46. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>; 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/msg01968.html (9,289 bytes)
47. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:28:29 -0700 (PDT); Yeah, TSO Reloaded really stinks. :-) Try the "Super TSO" patch I just posted instead.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01969.html (9,532 bytes)
48. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:51:53 -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/msg01971.html (10,123 bytes)
49. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:00:15 -0700 (PDT); Thanks for testing. I actually expected the new code to do better. Splitting could be a little bit expensive, but that only occurs at the beginning of the connection as we ramp up the congestion and; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01973.html (9,856 bytes)
50. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:47:48 -0400; With the new patch I'm getting 78.0%. Thanks for testing. I actually expected the new code to do better. Splitting could be a little bit expensive, but that only occurs at the beginning of the conne; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01974.html (9,935 bytes)
51. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:59:44 -0700 (PDT); Thanks for the data. How long are your transfers? Just curious. I think what I need to investigate is some kind of light cwnd prediction. This, plus some TSO packet coalescing logic when we undershoo; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01977.html (9,750 bytes)
52. Re: [PATCH] TSO Reloaded (score: 1): Author: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:48:35 -0400; Thanks for the data. How long are your transfers? Just curious. I was actually measuring 10 second intervals in the middle of a long running flow. -John; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01988.html (9,184 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 52
Page: [1] [2] [3]