Searched hist:246482 (Results 1 - 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /freebsd-11-stable/sys/dev/oce/ | ||
| H A D | oce_if.c | diff 246482 Thu Feb 07 13:37:19 MST 2013 rrs This fixes a out-of-order problem with several of the newer drivers. The basic problem was that the driver was pulling the mbuf off the drbr ring and then when sending with xmit(), encounting a full transmit ring. Thus the lower layer xmit() function would return an error, and the drivers would then append the data back on to the ring. For TCP this is a horrible scenario sure to bring on a fast-retransmit. The fix is to use drbr_peek() to pull the data pointer but not remove it from the ring. If it fails then we either call the new drbr_putback or drbr_advance method. Advance moves it forward (we do this sometimes when the xmit() function frees the mbuf). When we succeed we always call advance. The putback will always copy the mbuf back to the top of the ring. Note that the putback *cannot* be used with a drbr_dequeue() only with drbr_peek(). We most of the time, in putback, would not need to copy it back since most likey the mbuf is still the same, but sometimes xmit() functions will change the mbuf via a pullup or other call. So the optimial case for the single consumer is to always copy it back. If we ever do a multiple_consumer (for lagg?) we will need a test and atomic in the put back possibly a seperate putback_mc() in the ring buf. Reviewed by: jhb@freebsd.org, jlv@freebsd.org |
| /freebsd-11-stable/sys/dev/e1000/ | ||
| H A D | if_igb.c | diff 246482 Thu Feb 07 13:37:19 MST 2013 rrs This fixes a out-of-order problem with several of the newer drivers. The basic problem was that the driver was pulling the mbuf off the drbr ring and then when sending with xmit(), encounting a full transmit ring. Thus the lower layer xmit() function would return an error, and the drivers would then append the data back on to the ring. For TCP this is a horrible scenario sure to bring on a fast-retransmit. The fix is to use drbr_peek() to pull the data pointer but not remove it from the ring. If it fails then we either call the new drbr_putback or drbr_advance method. Advance moves it forward (we do this sometimes when the xmit() function frees the mbuf). When we succeed we always call advance. The putback will always copy the mbuf back to the top of the ring. Note that the putback *cannot* be used with a drbr_dequeue() only with drbr_peek(). We most of the time, in putback, would not need to copy it back since most likey the mbuf is still the same, but sometimes xmit() functions will change the mbuf via a pullup or other call. So the optimial case for the single consumer is to always copy it back. If we ever do a multiple_consumer (for lagg?) we will need a test and atomic in the put back possibly a seperate putback_mc() in the ring buf. Reviewed by: jhb@freebsd.org, jlv@freebsd.org |
| /freebsd-11-stable/sys/net/ | ||
| H A D | if_var.h | diff 246482 Thu Feb 07 13:37:19 MST 2013 rrs This fixes a out-of-order problem with several of the newer drivers. The basic problem was that the driver was pulling the mbuf off the drbr ring and then when sending with xmit(), encounting a full transmit ring. Thus the lower layer xmit() function would return an error, and the drivers would then append the data back on to the ring. For TCP this is a horrible scenario sure to bring on a fast-retransmit. The fix is to use drbr_peek() to pull the data pointer but not remove it from the ring. If it fails then we either call the new drbr_putback or drbr_advance method. Advance moves it forward (we do this sometimes when the xmit() function frees the mbuf). When we succeed we always call advance. The putback will always copy the mbuf back to the top of the ring. Note that the putback *cannot* be used with a drbr_dequeue() only with drbr_peek(). We most of the time, in putback, would not need to copy it back since most likey the mbuf is still the same, but sometimes xmit() functions will change the mbuf via a pullup or other call. So the optimial case for the single consumer is to always copy it back. If we ever do a multiple_consumer (for lagg?) we will need a test and atomic in the put back possibly a seperate putback_mc() in the ring buf. Reviewed by: jhb@freebsd.org, jlv@freebsd.org |
Completed in 215 milliseconds