At Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:00:04 -0700,
Kip Macy wrote:
>
> I would like to MFC TOE and RDMA support in the last week of May /
> first week of June. My primary objective is that it be present in 7.1.
> The re team has not yet decided when the freeze date for 7.1 will be,
> so I may end up asking to do
At Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:35:23 -0700 (PDT),
vijay singh wrote:
>
> Hi all. How do we avoid a race in populating the ifindex_table? Id
> this is a TODO, as it seems from the code below, would it be
> acceptable if I wrote a patch and reused the ifnet_lock
> [IFNET_WLOCK, IFNET_WUNLOCK]?
>
It is alm
Robert Watson wrote:
I would generally discourage use of our current DEVICE_POLLING code
using modern network devices, as the polling rate as compared to buffer
size has changed significantly, meaning that polling rates have to be
set ridiculously high.
I agree, from my playing around ther
I would like to MFC TOE and RDMA support in the last week of May /
first week of June. My primary objective is that it be present in 7.1.
The re team has not yet decided when the freeze date for 7.1 will be,
so I may end up asking to do it earlier.
The reason I'm bringing it up roughly 6 weeks in
Hi all. How do we avoid a race in populating the ifindex_table? Id this is a
TODO, as it seems from the code below, would it be acceptable if I wrote a
patch and reused the ifnet_lock [IFNET_WLOCK, IFNET_WUNLOCK]?
if_alloc(u_char type)
{
struct ifnet *ifp;
ifp = malloc(sizeof(struct if
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
[DEVICE_POLLING]
But why was it added to begin with if standard interrupt driven I/O is
faster? (was it the fact that historically h
Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
I do know it won't handle non contiguous masks well but as the
ipfw ABI code only accepts a network mask length instead of a
mask, there's not much that can be done.
I may suggest a later fix for that but it will break the ABI.
comments?
What yo
Thank you very mach for your response!
Yes, as i wrote before, if mrouted daemon, or pimdd daemon is running,
then ALLMULTI flag appears on all interfaces (i can see it from ifconfig
output). But multicast routing do not work.
I have a machine with an old FreeBSD4.9 running, wich working as a
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Gotcha, this is really good to know. FreeBSD is a new OS for me to work on
but I'm learning so much everyday! I believe Solaris uses ithreads natively
and I do know there are some drivers that forcefully create kernel threads
to handle interrupts a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
>
>
> > Robert, alright, this all makes sense. So it seems to me that the first
> step to salvation in my world is to turn off DEVICE_POLLING and rely on the
> interrupt coale
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
For my own edification, when do you want use DEVICE_POLLING versus
interrupt driven network I/O? With all question like these I suppose
the answer depends on the workload and the interrupt bandwidth of the
machine (which depends on the type of hardwa
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Robert, alright, this all makes sense. So it seems to me that the first
step to salvation in my world is to turn off DEVICE_POLLING and rely on the
interrupt coalescing that exists on the card. My only concern if this does
work is what impact this
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > First off thanks for the detailed reply Bruce. I have some follow-up
> > questions in my quest to learn more about BGE/networking etc.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
First off thanks for the detailed reply Bruce. I have some follow-up
questions in my quest to learn more about BGE/networking etc.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
On
First off thanks for the detailed reply Bruce. I have some follow-up
questions in my quest to learn more about BGE/networking etc.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jung-uk Kim
Synopsis: no response to ICMP traffic on interface configured with a link-local
address
State-Changed-From-To: open->patched
State-Changed-By: gnn
State-Changed-When: Thu Apr 17 12:51:46 UTC 2008
State-Changed-Why:
User submitted a patch which is now applied and tested.
Take over bug until clos
Dear all,
In the next couple of days (exact schedule depends on how testing goes), I'll
merge a portion of the rwlock lock patch that I've developed and that Kris has
been testing. This opens the door to increased parallelism in the network
stack by facilitating UDP and TCP moves to read-loc
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 04:28 pm, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> [CC trimmed]
>>
>> On Wednesday 16 April 2
Synopsis: [multicast] FreeBSD 7 multicast routing problem
State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: bms
State-Changed-When: Thu 17 Apr 2008 08:49:01 UTC
State-Changed-Why:
The symptoms you describe do not sound like a multicast routing issue.
Given your description it sounds like th
19 matches
Mail list logo
