On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:46:22AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: B> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:08:44AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: B> > On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:14, Andre Oppermann wrote: B> > > Mike Tancsa wrote: B> > > > At 12:43 PM 9/12/2006, Andre Oppermann wrote: B> > > > B> > > >> TSO != (vlan && promisc) B> > > > B> > > > Sorry, the commonality I was referring to was VLAN hardware tagging and B> > > > how it must be enabled for TSO, but that breaks other things. See a few B> > > > messages ago B> > > > B> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2006-September/065818.html B> > > B> > > I'm sure we can find a workaround for that. B> > B> > Well, you could have the em(4) driver manually handle TSO in software, which B> > is what it does to workaround the VLAN tag problem. (It does VLAN B> > encapsulation in the driver.) While VLAN insertion may be trivial, B> > re-implementing TCP segmentation in the driver might be a good bit less B> > trivial to do. There's not going to be a simple easy workaround for this B> > hardware bug. :( B> B> I'm not sure it's worth worrying about with GbE hardware. Just disable B> TSO in promiscuous mode. Where TSO is going to really matter is 10GbE. B> No supporting TSO in some configurations with GbE doesn't seem like a B> big deal to me. Yes, makeing TSO and promisc mutually exclusive would be fine. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPEReceived on Fri Sep 15 2006 - 08:22:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:00 UTC