[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248486089.3462.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:41:29 -0700
From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...u.dk>
Cc: "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 06/13] igb: move all multicast addresses
into multicast table array
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 01:57 -0700, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>
> > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> >
> > This patch moves all of the multicast addresses out of the free Receive
> > address registers and instead programs them all into the multicast table
> > array. As a result the multicast filtering may not be as precise, but it
> > also greatly reduces the overhead for multicast addresses.
>
> What do you mean by "the multicast filtering may not be as precise" ?
>
> I'm planning to use these NICs for multicast traffic (both routing and
> monitoring). Is there any precausing I need to be aware of?
>
The receive address registers, or RARs, are perfect match filters. The
multicast table array, or MTA, contains hashed values of the multicast
addresses. Therefore, it isn't a perfect match for the multicast
addresses anymore. But to support a larger number of multicast
addresses, they can't be written to the RARs, since those resources are
small and are needed for MAC and unicast address filtering.
Cheers,
-PJ Waskiewicz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists