Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:33:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
The NET_IP_ALIGN existed not just for fun :) There are ramifications
for removing it.
It's still there, isn't it?
For the 9k MTU case, for example, we end up allocating 16384 byte skbs
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:33:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > The NET_IP_ALIGN existed not just for fun :) There are ramifications
> > for removing it.
>
> It's still there, isn't it?
>
> For the 9k MTU case, for example, we end up allocating 16384 byte skbs
> instead o
From: Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:50:34 -0700
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It's still there, isn't it?
> >
> > For the 9k MTU case, for example, we end up allocating 16384 byte skbs
> > instead of 32786 kbytes ones.
>
> yes, the only thing I'm doing is accounting for the
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:50:00 -0700
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:10:36 -0700
Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
e1000: account for NET_IP_ALIGN when cal
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:50:00 -0700
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:10:36 -0700
> > Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > e1000: account for NET_IP_ALIGN when calcu
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:50:00 -0700
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:10:36 -0700
> Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > e1000: account for NET_IP_ALIGN when calculating bufsiz
> >
> > Account for NET_IP_ALIGN when requesting buffer sizes from netdev_alloc_s
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:10:36 -0700
Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if we can't account for NET_IP_ALIGN when selecting bufsize, to get
> at
> rid of at least 1 order size before we netdev_alloc_skb. This should make 9k
> frames only kmalloc(16384) and thus stay within the 16k bou
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:27:18 + (GMT)
Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get some of the "page allocation failure" errors. My hardware is 4 CPU
Opteron with one quad + one dual intel e1000 cards. Kernel is plain 2.6.18
and for two cards MTU is set to 9000.
Se
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:03:11PM +, Holger Kiehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >This is going to cause an 9000-byte MTU to use a 16384-byte allocation.
> >e1000_alloc_rx_buffers() adds two bytes to that, so we do kmalloc(16386),
> >which causes the slab allocator to request 32768 bytes. All
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:27:18 + (GMT)
Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get some of the "page allocation failure" errors. My hardware is 4 CPU
Opteron with one quad + one dual intel e1000 cards. Kernel is plain 2.6.18
and for two cards MTU i
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:27:18 + (GMT)
Holger Kiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get some of the "page allocation failure" errors. My hardware is 4 CPU
> Opteron with one quad + one dual intel e1000 cards. Kernel is plain 2.6.18
> and for two cards MTU is set to 9000.
>
> Sep 21 21:03:15
11 matches
Mail list logo
