From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:06:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from extgw-uk.mips.com ([IPv6:::ffff:62.254.210.129]:51728 "EHLO bacchus.net.dhis.org") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:06:16 +0100 Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bacchus.net.dhis.org (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8KB69uQ005289; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:06:09 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j8KB69Z3005288; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:06:09 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:06:09 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Matej Kupljen Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Daniel Jacobowitz , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix TCP/UDP checksums on the Broadcom SB-1 Message-ID: <20050920110609.GB3159@linux-mips.org> References: <20050920032818.GA7199@nevyn.them.org> <1127214005.2149.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1127214005.2149.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 8991 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 01:00:04PM +0200, Matej Kupljen wrote: > > > This caused incorrect checksums in some UDP packets for NFS root. The > > > problem was mild when using a 10.0.1.x IP address, but severe when > > > using 192.168.1.x. > > > > Ah! So *that* is the reason for the absolutely abysmal NFS performance > > of the SWARM with 2.6! I have had no time to track it down -- thanks a > > lot! > > Is this for MIPS64 only? > Because, on dbau1200 we also have poor NFS performance :-( It's for 64-bit kernels only. Note the difference, I didn't say MIPS64. Also, since this bug did result in an operation that has undefined behaviour it likely may will only have impacted some 64-bit processors - such as the SB1 - but others may have been unaffected. Ralf