On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:33:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:
> > The NET_IP_ALIGN existed not just for fun :)  There are ramifications
> > for removing it.
> 
> It's still there, isn't it?
> 
> For the 9k MTU case, for example, we end up allocating 16384 byte skbs
> instead of 32786 kbytes ones.

This patch will not help - netdev_alloc_skb() adds additional
NET_SKB_PAD and then alloc_skb() adds sizeof(struct skb_shared_info).
And even if you acconut for them in adapter->rx_buf_len, chip still can
overwrite that area (in the thread mentioned in this e-mail thread
before I posted such patch and received a dump of sizes chip receives -
there were a lot of _different_ ones which were too close to the limit).

> 
> diff -puN 
> drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c~e1000-account-for-net_ip_align-when-calculating-bufsiz
>  drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> --- 
> a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c~e1000-account-for-net_ip_align-when-calculating-bufsiz
> +++ a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ e1000_sw_init(struct e1000_adapter *adap
>  
>       pci_read_config_word(pdev, PCI_COMMAND, &hw->pci_cmd_word);
>  
> -     adapter->rx_buffer_len = MAXIMUM_ETHERNET_VLAN_SIZE;
> +     adapter->rx_buffer_len = MAXIMUM_ETHERNET_VLAN_SIZE + NET_IP_ALIGN;
>       adapter->rx_ps_bsize0 = E1000_RXBUFFER_128;
>       hw->max_frame_size = netdev->mtu +
>                            ENET_HEADER_SIZE + ETHERNET_FCS_SIZE;
> @@ -3163,26 +3163,27 @@ e1000_change_mtu(struct net_device *netd
>        * larger slab size
>        * i.e. RXBUFFER_2048 --> size-4096 slab */
>  
> -     if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_256)
> +     if (max_frame + NET_IP_ALIGN <= E1000_RXBUFFER_256)
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_256;
> -     else if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_512)
> +     else if (max_frame + NET_IP_ALIGN <= E1000_RXBUFFER_512)
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_512;
> -     else if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_1024)
> +     else if (max_frame + NET_IP_ALIGN <= E1000_RXBUFFER_1024)
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_1024;
> -     else if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_2048)
> +     else if (max_frame + NET_IP_ALIGN <= E1000_RXBUFFER_2048)
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_2048;
> -     else if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_4096)
> +     else if (max_frame + NET_IP_ALIGN <= E1000_RXBUFFER_4096)
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_4096;
> -     else if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_8192)
> +     else if (max_frame + NET_IP_ALIGN <= E1000_RXBUFFER_8192)
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_8192;
> -     else if (max_frame <= E1000_RXBUFFER_16384)
> +     else
>               adapter->rx_buffer_len = E1000_RXBUFFER_16384;
>  
>       /* adjust allocation if LPE protects us, and we aren't using SBP */
>       if (!adapter->hw.tbi_compatibility_on &&
>           ((max_frame == MAXIMUM_ETHERNET_FRAME_SIZE) ||
>            (max_frame == MAXIMUM_ETHERNET_VLAN_SIZE)))
> -             adapter->rx_buffer_len = MAXIMUM_ETHERNET_VLAN_SIZE;
> +             adapter->rx_buffer_len = MAXIMUM_ETHERNET_VLAN_SIZE +
> +                                     NET_IP_ALIGN;
>  
>       netdev->mtu = new_mtu;
>  
> @@ -4002,7 +4003,8 @@ e1000_alloc_rx_buffers(struct e1000_adap
>       struct e1000_buffer *buffer_info;
>       struct sk_buff *skb;
>       unsigned int i;
> -     unsigned int bufsz = adapter->rx_buffer_len + NET_IP_ALIGN;
> +     /* we have already accounted for NET_IP_ALIGN */
> +     unsigned int bufsz = adapter->rx_buffer_len;
>  
>       i = rx_ring->next_to_use;
>       buffer_info = &rx_ring->buffer_info[i];
> _
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
        Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to