The tsec_error_intr_locked() is called with the global lock owned (e.g.
the transmit and the receive lock are both owned). We must not call
tsec_receive_intr_locked() while owning the transmit lock. The normal
receive interrupt takes care that frames are received, this is none of
the business of
Do not count discared frames due to lack of buffers as input errors.
---
sys/dev/tsec/if_tsec.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sys/dev/tsec/if_tsec.c b/sys/dev/tsec/if_tsec.c
index 2a8c3e2..66ee130 100644
--- a/sys/dev/tsec/if_tsec.c
+++ b/sys/dev/tsec/if_
Victor Sudakov wrote:
>
> Is anyone running GSSAPI+IKE (racoon)?
I'm still struggling with racoon in GSSAPI mode. racoon says
2017-03-08 13:01:59: [192.168.3.38] ERROR: failed to get valid proposal.
2017-03-08 13:01:59: [192.168.3.38] ERROR: failed to pre-process ph1 packet
(side: 1, status 1).
Hi.
Some have probably seen this already -
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2017-March/313254.html
So, could anyone explain why FreeBSD was owned that much. Test is split
into two parts, one is nginx part, and the other is the IPv4 forwarding
part. I understand that nginx ownag
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> # dmesg | grep netm
> netmap: loaded module
> vcxl0: netmap queues/slots: TX 2/1023, RX 2/1024
> vcxl0: 1 txq, 1 rxq (NIC); 1 txq, 1 rxq (TOE); 2 txq, 2 rxq (netmap)
> vcxl1: netmap queues/slots: TX 2/1023, RX 2/1024
> vcxl1: 1 txq, 1 rxq (NI
On 3/7/2017 5:07 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Using netsend, I cant seem to blast through a single flow of packets
>> greater than 800Kpps without packet loss. Can you point me to any
>> performance tweaks for forwarding / routing ?
>>
jhujhiti_adjectivism.org marked 6 inline comments as done.
jhujhiti_adjectivism.org added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> asomers wrote in icmp6.c:2147
> No. According to the comment at the bottom of icmp6_error, it isn't, because
> icmp6_reflect can sometimes be called from the output path.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217600
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
--
You are
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217607
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ng_cisco flow control |ng_cisco only sends flow
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217606
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
--
You are
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
...
>
> Using netsend, I cant seem to blast through a single flow of packets
> greater than 800Kpps without packet loss. Can you point me to any
> performance tweaks for forwarding / routing ?
>
> I have 3 boxes, with one in the middle
>
> (netse
On 3/7/2017 3:34 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> cxgbe's netmap support was overhauled in r302110 so it should already
> be in 11.0. Try hw.cxgbe.num_vis=2 and use the vcxl interfaces for
> netmap.
>
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/2016-June/126504.html
Thanks very much Navdeep!
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> Is it possible for you to run 10-STABLE?
I meant 11-STABLE of course.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail
Is it possible for you to run 10-STABLE? The netmap support in cxgbe
was enhanced and uses the general purpose 'vcxl' interfaces now. You
can enable them with hw.cxgbe.num_vis=2 in loader.conf.
If -STABLE is not an option then check if you built your kernel with
device NETMAP. config -x /boot/k
I have a Chelsio T520 NIC that I have been trying to get netmap working
with. I see reference to the ncxl# vs cxl# interface on the lists, but I
never see ncxl come up. The man pages dont say anything about having to
specifically enable anything that I can see. I am using RELENG11 as of
today (r3
asomers added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> jhujhiti_adjectivism.org wrote in icmp6.c:2147
> @asomers, can you confirm that M_GETFIB(m) is always correctly set to the FIB
> of the receiving interface?
No. According to the comment at the bottom of icmp6_error, it isn't, because
icmp6_refl
Dnia poniedziałek, 6 marca 2017 16:06:03 CET Sepherosa Ziehau pisze:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Kajetan Staszkiewicz
>
> wrote:
> > To whom it might concern:
> >
> > Well, at least it does concern me. Why is support for multiple interrupts
> > and queues not enabled on bce(4)?
> >
> > W
Defragment the transmit mbuf chain only if necessary. Use a method
similar to the if_dwc driver. Use a wmb() before the flags of the first
transmit buffer of a frame are written.
Group transmit/receive structure members for better cache efficiency.
Tested on P1020RDB. TCP transmit throughput i
18 matches
Mail list logo
