From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: ben@decadent.org.uk
Cc: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, bruce.w.allan@intel.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next] e1000e: remove use of IP payload checksum
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:37:52 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120630.173752.1993136000245136259.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1341092196.4852.43.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:36:36 +0100
> On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 03:35 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> From: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com>
>>
>> Currently only used when packet split mode is enabled with jumbo frames,
>> IP payload checksum (for fragmented UDP packets) is mutually exclusive with
>> receive hashing offload since the hardware uses the same space in the
>> receive descriptor for the hardware-provided packet checksum and the RSS
>> hash, respectively. Users currently must disable jumbos when receive
>> hashing offload is enabled, or vice versa, because of this incompatibility.
>> Since testing has shown that IP payload checksum does not provide any real
>> benefit, just remove it so that there is no longer a choice between jumbos
>> or receive hashing offload but not both as done in other Intel GbE drivers
>> (e.g. e1000, igb).
>>
>> Also, add a missing check for IP checksum error reported by the hardware;
>> let the stack verify the checksum when this happens.
> [...]
>
> The change to enable RX hashing in 3.4, with this odd restriction seems
> to have broken most existing systems using jumbo MTU on e1000e. None of
> the distro scripts or network management daemons will automatically
> change offload configuration before MTU; how could they know?
>
> Therefore this needs to be fixed in 3.5 and 3.4.y, not net-next.
Agreed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-01 0:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-30 10:35 [net-next] e1000e: remove use of IP payload checksum Jeff Kirsher
2012-06-30 21:36 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-01 0:37 ` David Miller [this message]
2012-07-01 5:32 ` Jeff Kirsher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120630.173752.1993136000245136259.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=bruce.w.allan@intel.com \
--cc=gospo@redhat.com \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sassmann@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).