Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964838AbWHCS3d (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:29:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964834AbWHCS3d (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:29:33 -0400 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:47330 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964829AbWHCS3c (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:29:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:29:11 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Arnd Hannemann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, olel@ans.pl Subject: Re: problems with e1000 and jumboframes Message-ID: <20060803182911.GA8692@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <44D1FEB7.2050703@arndnet.de> <20060803135925.GA28348@2ka.mipt.ru> <44D20A2F.3090005@arndnet.de> <20060803150330.GB12915@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060803151631.GA14774@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060803154125.GA9745@2ka.mipt.ru> <44D23BC3.7040707@arndnet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44D23BC3.7040707@arndnet.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.5 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:29:12 +0400 (MSD) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3640 Lines: 79 On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 08:09:07PM +0200, Arnd Hannemann (arnd@arndnet.de) wrote: > Evgeniy Polyakov schrieb: > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:16:31PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov (johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru) wrote: > >>>> 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? > > > > Actually this patch will not help, this new one could. > > > > I applied the attached pachted. And got this output: > > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 13762 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16058 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15894 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15730 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15566 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15402 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15238 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15074 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14910 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14746 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14582 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14418 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14254 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14090 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 13926 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 13762 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16058 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15894 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15730 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15566 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15402 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15238 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15074 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14910 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14746 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14582 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14418 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222 > > I'm a bit puzzled that there are so much allocations. However the patch > seems to work. (at least not obviously breaks things for me yet) Very strange output actually - comments in the code say that frame size can not exceed 0x3f00, but in this log it is much more than 16128 and that is after sizeof(struct skb_shared_info) has been removed... Could you please remove debug output and run some network stress test in parallel with high disk/memory activity to check if that does not break your system and watch /proc/slabinfo for 16k and 32k sized pools. > Best regards > Arnd -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/