| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:37:41 +0200 From: Arnd Hannemann <arnd@...dnet.de> To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> Cc: Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: problems with e1000 and jumboframes Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:08:51PM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki (olel@....pl) wrote: >>>> Why? After your explanation that makes sense for me. The driver needs >>>> one contiguous chunk for those 9k packet buffer and thus requests a >>>> 3-order page of 16k. Or do i still do not understand this? >>> Correct, except that it wants 32k. >>> e1000 logic is following: >>> align frame size to power-of-two, >> 16K? > > Yep. > >>> then skb_alloc adds a little >>> (sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) at the end, and this ends up >>> in 32k request just for 9k jumbo frame. >> Strange, why this skb_shared_info cannon be added before first alignment? >> And what about smaller frames like 1500, does this driver behave similar >> (first align then add)? > > It can be. > Could attached (completely untested) patch help? I will try this in a minute. However is there any way to see which allocation e1000 does without triggering allocation failures? ;-) Thanks, Arnd Hannemann - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists