[Differential] D6689: tcp/lro: Implement hash table for LRO entries.

2016-06-07 Thread sepherosa_gmail.com (Sepherosa Ziehau)
sepherosa_gmail.com added a comment. In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6689#142118, @gallatin wrote: > Looks good in terms of not killing perf. for the sorted case, and I'm fine with it as-is. However, maybe an else would be better than a goto? Yeah, sure, I can move the bucket

[Differential] D6689: tcp/lro: Implement hash table for LRO entries.

2016-06-07 Thread gallatin (Andrew Gallatin)
gallatin accepted this revision. gallatin added a comment. Looks good in terms of not killing perf. for the sorted case, and I'm fine with it as-is. However, maybe an else would be better than a goto? REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6689 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews

Re: Is netmap jumbo frames broken in STABLE?

2016-06-07 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 07.06.16 15:22, Andrew Vylegzhanin wrote: > > Just for support Luigi assumption. > > > > I've tested on 11.0-ALPHA1 (r301204). > > Same situation with frame size 5166 and works _well_ with frame size > 4032. > > This was changed in >

Re: Is netmap jumbo frames broken in STABLE?

2016-06-07 Thread Andrey V. Elsukov
On 07.06.16 15:22, Andrew Vylegzhanin wrote: > Just for support Luigi assumption. > > I've tested on 11.0-ALPHA1 (r301204). > Same situation with frame size 5166 and works _well_ with frame size 4032. This was changed in https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=283883 In th

Re: Is netmap jumbo frames broken in STABLE?

2016-06-07 Thread Andrew Vylegzhanin
Just for support Luigi assumption. I've tested on 11.0-ALPHA1 (r301204). Same situation with frame size 5166 and works _well_ with frame size 4032. -- Andrew 2016-06-07 1:47 GMT+03:00 Ryan Stone : > The use of mbuf clusters larger than a single page really doesn't work. > The problem is that ov