On 08/08/16 15:40, Sreekanth Rupavatharam wrote:
> Quite possibly, but my question remains. If the register doesn’t have any
> specific value for just a received packet(no other events), how is a value of
> 0 considered to be wrong? Or to flip the question around, what should be the
> value of
Quite possibly, but my question remains. If the register doesn’t have any
specific value for just a received packet(no other events), how is a value of 0
considered to be wrong? Or to flip the question around, what should be the
value of the register for just receive of a packet?
Thanks,
-Sree
On 08/08/16 13:14, Sreekanth Rupavatharam wrote:
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Sreekanth
>
>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
>>
>> Is this with the "lem" driver or the "em" driver under QEMU?
>>
> It's for lem driver under qemu. My question is mainly about there being no
> specific bit
08.08.2016 8:57, Sepherosa Ziehau пишет:
We have an optimized wrk here:
https://github.com/sepherosa/wrk
I've glanced over your changes to wrk.
(Btw, you have minor bug there: missed 'N' short flag in getopt_long()
invocation
for new --delay option, so "wrk --delay" works but "wrk -N" fails to
Thanks,
-Sreekanth
> On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
>
> Is this with the "lem" driver or the "em" driver under QEMU?
>
It's for lem driver under qemu. My question is mainly about there being no
specific bit for a packet received in this register or am I missing something
he
On 08/05/16 12:01, Sreekanth Rupavatharam wrote:
> We have this code snippet in em_irq_fast
>
> ifp =
> adapter->ifp;
>
>
>
>
> reg_icr = E100
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211031
Dimitry Andric changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #4 f
On 7 August 2016 at 18:40, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> I've updated the wiki with this TODO list. How's it look?
>>
>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/NetworkRSS
>
> Pretty much what had been discussed on the mail-list. Good summary.
Co
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194109
--- Comment #4 from Sean Bruno ---
(In reply to Glen Barber from comment #3)
No commit has been implemented for this issue. My review/phab thing is a proof
of concept that demonstrates that the LOR dissapears if you remove the LOCK,
which
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194109
--- Comment #3 from Glen Barber ---
I do not see a corresponding commit for this. Is it still an issue?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-net
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211031
--- Comment #3 from Glen Barber ---
I do not see a corresponding commit to head or stable/11 for this. Is this
still an issue?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211386
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|--- |Normal
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211386
Eric van Gyzen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vangy...@freebsd.org
--- Comment
> On 04 Aug 2016, at 11:40, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>
>
>> On 02 Aug 2016, at 22:11, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>
>>> On 02 Aug 2016, at 21:35, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
>>> The CX-3 driver doesn't bind the worker threads to specific CPU cores by
>>> default, so if your CPU has more than one so-cal
> On 05 Aug 2016, at 10:30, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> On 08/04/16 23:49, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04 Aug 2016, at 20:15, Ryan Stone wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Ben RUBSON wrote:
>>> But even without RSS, I should be able to go up to 2x40Gbps, don't you
>>> think
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191433
Eric van Gyzen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vangy...@freebsd.org
--- Comment
On 08.08.2016 08:57, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> We have an optimized wrk here:
> https://github.com/sepherosa/wrk
>
> It greatly reduces the # of kqueue syscalls and avoids unnecessary
> setsockopt etc.
What branch should I fetch?
___
freebsd-net@freeb
On 08.08.2016 08:57, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> We have an optimized wrk here:
> https://github.com/sepherosa/wrk
Thank you, I'll try it.
> It greatly reduces the # of kqueue syscalls and avoids unnecessary
> setsockopt etc. BTW, how many concurrent connections and threads are
> you testing w/?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211644
Hans Petter Selasky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hsela...@freebsd.org
--- Com
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208977
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|freebsd-am...@freebsd.org |
Summary|bxe driver caus
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195692
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|misc|bin
Assignee|freebsd-stan
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195234
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.o |freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192756
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.o |freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191433
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.o |freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211386
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|freebsd-am
25 matches
Mail list logo
