Re: Value of congestion window (cwnd) when loss is detected

2015-09-03 Thread hiren panchasara
On 09/03/15 at 10:53P, hiren panchasara wrote: > On 09/03/15 at 09:16P, hiren panchasara wrote: > > On 09/03/15 at 09:13P, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > [skip] > > > > > > You want to read up about window inflation during fast recovery in RFC > > > 5681 followed by 3782, and then consult Stevens vol 2

Re: GPL issues around OFED code in FreeBSD 9.1

2015-09-03 Thread Garrett Cooper
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 13:18, Jeff Meegan wrote: > > According to their EULA, it is BSD licensed. > > http://www.mellanox.com/page/mlnx_ofed_eula?mtag=linux_sw_drivers Yes, but the 9.1 version wasn't strictly from Mellanox.. I don't know if I'd use the pre-Mellanox version though, tbh. Thanks,

Re: mbufq-less iwn(4)

2015-09-03 Thread Adrian Chadd
It's fixed in -head. I should close that. -a On 3 September 2015 at 07:11, Andriy Voskoboinyk wrote: >> Adrian, >> >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:33:53PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> A> We have to do mbuf queues in drivers for wifi, because of 11n >> A> aggregation. So on one hand we want to

Re: GPL issues around OFED code in FreeBSD 9.1

2015-09-03 Thread Jeff Meegan
According to their EULA, it is BSD licensed. http://www.mellanox.com/page/mlnx_ofed_eula?mtag=linux_sw_drivers —j > On Sep 3, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Jack Vogel wrote: > > We (meaning Intel when I was still there) raised this issue

Re: GPL issues around OFED code in FreeBSD 9.1

2015-09-03 Thread Jack Vogel
We (meaning Intel when I was still there) raised this issue with George a long time ago, I'm not sure what the resolution was. If Mellanox is the owner then they should have released the code somewhere without any GPL license in it, as Intel does with code they multi-license. Jack On Thu, Sep 3

Re: GPL issues around OFED code in FreeBSD 9.1

2015-09-03 Thread K. Macy
On Sep 3, 2015 10:33 AM, "Vijay Singh" wrote: > > Someone told me that once the OFED code hit kernel.org the GPL is the only > license that applies. Does anyone have insights about that? That sounds bizarre since mellanox wrote the code and explicitly dual licensed. The problem you *do* run in t

Re: Value of congestion window (cwnd) when loss is detected

2015-09-03 Thread hiren panchasara
On 09/03/15 at 09:16P, hiren panchasara wrote: > On 09/03/15 at 09:13P, Lawrence Stewart wrote: [skip] > > > > You want to read up about window inflation during fast recovery in RFC > > 5681 followed by 3782, and then consult Stevens vol 2 to understand how > > variables are used for different pur

Re: GPL issues around OFED code in FreeBSD 9.1

2015-09-03 Thread Vijay Singh
Someone told me that once the OFED code hit kernel.org the GPL is the only license that applies. Does anyone have insights about that? On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > > On Aug 31, 2015, at 09:34, Hrishikesh Keremane via freebsd-hackers < > freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org>

Re: Value of congestion window (cwnd) when loss is detected

2015-09-03 Thread hiren panchasara
On 09/03/15 at 09:13P, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 09/03/15 10:54, hiren panchasara wrote: > > I am failing to understand the reason behind this behavior. > > > > What should the congestion window (snd_cwnd) be set to when we hit loss? > > It seems that we set it to 1 segment right now. > > https

Re: mbufq-less iwn(4)

2015-09-03 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 05:11:27PM +0300, Andriy Voskoboinyk wrote: A> > A> Other thing - ic_transmit() also needs to handle fragments, like I do A> > A> with ath. Ie, handing it a list of packets is actually a list of A> > A> 802.11 fragments, rather than separate MPDUs. A> > A> A> > A> Another th

Re: mbufq-less iwn(4)

2015-09-03 Thread Andriy Voskoboinyk
Adrian, On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:33:53PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: A> We have to do mbuf queues in drivers for wifi, because of 11n A> aggregation. So on one hand we want to have if_transmit() apply A> backpressure through the stack, but there's also going to be some A> buffering. :P No, th

Re: Value of congestion window (cwnd) when loss is detected

2015-09-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 9/3/15 7:13 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote: On 09/03/15 10:54, hiren panchasara wrote: I am failing to understand the reason behind this behavior. What should the congestion window (snd_cwnd) be set to when we hit loss? It seems that we set it to 1 segment right now. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/b

Re: Value of congestion window (cwnd) when loss is detected

2015-09-03 Thread Lawrence Stewart
On 09/03/15 10:54, hiren panchasara wrote: > I am failing to understand the reason behind this behavior. > > What should the congestion window (snd_cwnd) be set to when we hit loss? > It seems that we set it to 1 segment right now. > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netinet/tcp_input.c?rev