From: Zoltan Kiss
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:00:30 +0100
> On 04/08/14 23:24, David Miller wrote:
>> Given what I've seen so far, I think the only option is to linearize
>> the packet.
> I think that would have more performance penalty than calling
> skb_gso_segment, but maybe I'm wrong.
We have f
From: Zoltan Kiss
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:29:34 +0100
> On 31/07/14 21:25, David Miller wrote:
>> Secondly, for something like UDP you can't just split the packet up
>> like this, or for any other datagram protocol for that matter.
> The netback/netfront interface currently only supports TSO and
On 04/08/14 23:24, David Miller wrote:
From: Wei Liu
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:11:10 +0100
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 03:33:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Wei Liu
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:02:46 +0100
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
If you were to have a 64
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 03:24:11PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wei Liu
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:11:10 +0100
>
> > On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 03:33:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Wei Liu
> >> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:02:46 +0100
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0
From: Wei Liu
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:11:10 +0100
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 03:33:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Wei Liu
>> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:02:46 +0100
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> >> If you were to have a 64-slot TX queue, you oug
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 06:29:34PM +0100, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 31/07/14 21:25, David Miller wrote:
> >From: Zoltan Kiss
> >Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:25:30 +0100
> >
> >>There is a long known problem with the netfront/netback interface: if the
> >>guest
> >>tries to send a packet which constitu
On 31/07/14 21:25, David Miller wrote:
From: Zoltan Kiss
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:25:30 +0100
There is a long known problem with the netfront/netback interface: if the guest
tries to send a packet which constitues more than MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1 ring slots,
it gets dropped. The reason is that net
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 03:33:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wei Liu
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:02:46 +0100
>
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> If you were to have a 64-slot TX queue, you ought to be able to handle
> >> this theoretical 51 slot SKB.
>
From: Wei Liu
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:02:46 +0100
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> If you were to have a 64-slot TX queue, you ought to be able to handle
>> this theoretical 51 slot SKB.
>
> There's two problems:
> 1. IIRC a single page ring has 256 slots, allo
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:25:20PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Zoltan Kiss
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:25:30 +0100
[...]
> Secondly, for something like UDP you can't just split the packet up
> like this, or for any other datagram protocol for that matter.
>
> I know you're in a difficult s
From: Zoltan Kiss
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:25:30 +0100
> There is a long known problem with the netfront/netback interface: if the
> guest
> tries to send a packet which constitues more than MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1 ring
> slots,
> it gets dropped. The reason is that netback maps these slots to a fra
11 matches
Mail list logo
