[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+mtBx-8AzEyUc3GVD+mEQoqUZeaB9hjSJonRW_SjOQaTx51mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:04:38 -0800
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] e1000e: Support for byte queue limits
> whats wrong with using total_tx_bytes or buffer_info->bytecount? it
> contains the "bytes on the wire" value which will be slightly larger
> than skb->len, but avoids warming the skb->len cacheline unnecessarily.
>
This makes sense. I made the changes, but the limits computed are
much higher than with using sbk->len. I suspect there may be a bug in
GSO path.
For instance, in the driver at:
bytecount = ((segs - 1) * skb_headlen(skb)) + skb->len;
I see cases like:
segs=34, skb_header_len(skb)=70, skb->len=49298 so bytecount=51608
Which seems reasonable... but, I also see things like:
segs=45, skb_header_len(skb)=1522, skb->len=65226, so bytecount= 132194
^^^^
Which doesn't seem right at all. I am thinking there may be a bug
setting skb->data_len improperly.
Tom
--
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