Re: Some questions about the new TCP congestion control code

2013-01-15 Thread Lawrence Stewart
Hi John, On 01/15/13 08:04, John Baldwin wrote: > I was looking at TCP congestion control at work recently and noticed a few Poor you ;) > "odd" things in the current code. First, there is this chunk of code in > cc_ack_received() in tcp_input.c: > > static void inline > cc_ack_received(stru

Re: if_vr(4) and DFE520-TX

2013-01-15 Thread Aleksandr Rybalko
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:15:53 +0900 YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:49:13PM +0400, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: > > Ok, I got some details. It's an DFE-520TX (/C1 or rev. C1). I crafted an > > patch attached, but whenever kldloading the modified if_vr, I got this: > > > > kerne

Re: [PATCH] Don't imply TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks

2013-01-15 Thread Lawrence Stewart
On 01/15/13 07:50, John Baldwin wrote: > The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are > currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However, socket > options are never masked together, they are used as a simple enumeration of > discrete values. Using

Re: [SOLVED] if_vr(4) and DFE520-TX [working with patched if_rl]

2013-01-15 Thread Ruslan Makhmatkhanov
YongHyeon PYUN wrote on 15.01.2013 10:51: Hmm, I don't get it. Diff inlined again. Index: sys/pci/if_rlreg.h === --- sys/pci/if_rlreg.h (revision 245199) +++ sys/pci/if_rlreg.h (working copy) @@ -1048,6 +1048,11 @@ struct rl_soft

Re: To SMP or not to SMP

2013-01-15 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:12:09PM -0600, Bryan Venteicher wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Baldwin" > > To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > > Cc: "Konstantin Belousov" , "Bryan Venteicher" > > , "Peter Jeremy" > > > > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 3:57:58 PM > > Subject: R

static kernel with mod_cc?

2013-01-15 Thread Eggert, Lars
Hi, mod_cc(4) says: Algorithm modules can be compiled into the kernel or loaded as kernel modules using the kld(4) facility. Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out how to statically compile mod_cc modules into the kernel? (I'm using a PAE kernel w/o modules.) Hints appreciated. Tha

Re: static kernel with mod_cc?

2013-01-15 Thread Lawrence Stewart
Hi Lars, On 01/15/13 23:47, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > mod_cc(4) says: > > Algorithm modules can be compiled into the kernel or loaded as kernel > modules using the kld(4) facility. > > Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out how to statically compile > mod_cc modules into the kernel? (I'm u

Re: static kernel with mod_cc?

2013-01-15 Thread Eggert, Lars
Hi, On Jan 15, 2013, at 14:09, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > You're not dense - the build glue to allow an algorithm to be specified > in a kernel config file doesn't exist. ah, that explains it. I guess it doesn't exist for siftr either? > The hacky way to achieve what you want would be to edit >

Re: To SMP or not to SMP

2013-01-15 Thread Bryan Venteicher
- Original Message - > From: "Konstantin Belousov" > To: "Bryan Venteicher" > Cc: "John Baldwin" , "Peter Jeremy" , > freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:42:16 AM > Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:12:09PM -0600, Bryan Venteicher

Re: [PATCH] Don't imply TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks

2013-01-15 Thread John Baldwin
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:49:33 am Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 01/15/13 07:50, John Baldwin wrote: > > The constants used for TCP and UDP socket options (TCP_NODELAY, etc.) are > > currently defined as hex values that are individual bits. However, socket > > options are never masked togeth

Re: Some questions about the new TCP congestion control code

2013-01-15 Thread John Baldwin
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:29:51 am Lawrence Stewart wrote: > Hi John, > > On 01/15/13 08:04, John Baldwin wrote: > > I was looking at TCP congestion control at work recently and noticed a few > > Poor you ;) > > > "odd" things in the current code. First, there is this chunk of code in >

Re: [PATCH] Don't imply TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks

2013-01-15 Thread John Baldwin
On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:17:12 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/14/13 4:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:42:16 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> Wouldn't a comment over the code suffice? > >> > >> Something like your email as a header would actually work very nicely!

Re: [PATCH] Don't imply TCP and UDP socket options are bitmasks

2013-01-15 Thread Eitan Adler
On 14 January 2013 15:50, John Baldwin wrote: > Using a bitmask forces us to run out of bits and makes it > harder for vendors to try to use a high range of values for local custom > options (hoping that they never conflict with a new option value added in > stock FreeBSD). We should explicitly d

two problems in dev/e1000/if_lem.c::lem_handle_rxtx()

2013-01-15 Thread Luigi Rizzo
Hi, i found a couple of problems in dev/e1000/if_lem.c::lem_handle_rxtx() , (compare with dev/e1000/if_em.c::em_handle_que() for better understanding): 1. in if_em.c::em_handle_que(), when em_rxeof() exceeds the rx_process_limit, the task is rescheduled so it can complete the work. Con

Re: [SOLVED] if_vr(4) and DFE520-TX [working with patched if_rl]

2013-01-15 Thread YongHyeon PYUN
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:04:49PM +0400, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: > YongHyeon PYUN wrote on 15.01.2013 10:51: > > > >Hmm, I don't get it. > >Diff inlined again. > > > >Index: sys/pci/if_rlreg.h > >=== > >--- sys/pci/if_rlreg.h

Re: two problems in dev/e1000/if_lem.c::lem_handle_rxtx()

2013-01-15 Thread Jack Vogel
OK, will look at this as soon as I can. Jack On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Hi, > i found a couple of problems in > dev/e1000/if_lem.c::lem_handle_rxtx() , > (compare with dev/e1000/if_em.c::em_handle_que() for better understanding): > > 1. in if_em.c::em_handle_

Re: static kernel with mod_cc?

2013-01-15 Thread Lawrence Stewart
On 01/16/13 02:12, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > On Jan 15, 2013, at 14:09, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >> You're not dense - the build glue to allow an algorithm to be specified >> in a kernel config file doesn't exist. > > ah, that explains it. I guess it doesn't exist for siftr either? Correct,