| To: | Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:07:40 -0800 |
| Cc: | hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050211150420.74737b2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <0525M9211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050211150420.74737b2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:04:20 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Still not setting Push sufficiently to keep MacOSX happy. I don't think it's the kernel's fault in this case. This set of data frames you quoted are all full, and are tightly interspaced. It looks exactly like a TSO frame, which we certainly set PSH on, but the TSO engine is dropping it aparently. I guess this is e1000. Any e1000 internals experts reading here who can comment on how e1000's TSO engine treats the PSH flag? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Acer Aspire 1524WLMi and RealTek 8169 - very slow, Francois Romieu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Stephen Hemminger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |