All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Soeren Moch <smoch@web.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Dale Farnsworth <dale@farnsworth.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:03:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABJ1b_TQDabT1J7ffo5cb1Th=71bcSduifMJaDpfVRiiHvtWDw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sebastian,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> I did some simple tests on Dove/Cubox with 'netperf -cCD' and
> gso/gro/lro options on
> mv643xx_eth. The tests may not be sufficient, as I am not that into
> net performance testing.

In fact the difference only happens when the NIC has not verified the
checksum itself IIRC, which should be for non-IPv4 traffic. I agree
that it's not easy to test a bridge with a cubox which has a single
port :-) Maybe you'll see a difference in IPv6 traffic or with VLAN
traffic, as I seem to remember this chip does not do cksum offloading
on VLANs, but I could be wrong.

> I tried todays net-next on top of 3.9-rc6 without any gro patch, with
> the initial
> patch (Soeren) and your proposed patch (Willy). The results show that
> both patches
> allow a significant increase in throughput compared to
> netif_receive_skb (!gro, !lro)
> alone. Having gro with lro disabled gives some 2% more throughput
> compared to lro only.

Indeed this is consistent with my memories, since Eric improved the
GRO path, it became faster than LRO on this chip.

Regards,
Willy

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: w@1wt.eu (Willy Tarreau)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:03:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABJ1b_TQDabT1J7ffo5cb1Th=71bcSduifMJaDpfVRiiHvtWDw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sebastian,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> I did some simple tests on Dove/Cubox with 'netperf -cCD' and
> gso/gro/lro options on
> mv643xx_eth. The tests may not be sufficient, as I am not that into
> net performance testing.

In fact the difference only happens when the NIC has not verified the
checksum itself IIRC, which should be for non-IPv4 traffic. I agree
that it's not easy to test a bridge with a cubox which has a single
port :-) Maybe you'll see a difference in IPv6 traffic or with VLAN
traffic, as I seem to remember this chip does not do cksum offloading
on VLANs, but I could be wrong.

> I tried todays net-next on top of 3.9-rc6 without any gro patch, with
> the initial
> patch (Soeren) and your proposed patch (Willy). The results show that
> both patches
> allow a significant increase in throughput compared to
> netif_receive_skb (!gro, !lro)
> alone. Having gro with lro disabled gives some 2% more throughput
> compared to lro only.

Indeed this is consistent with my memories, since Eric improved the
GRO path, it became faster than LRO on this chip.

Regards,
Willy

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>,
	Soeren Moch <smoch@web.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>,
	Dale Farnsworth <dale@farnsworth.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:03:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABJ1b_TQDabT1J7ffo5cb1Th=71bcSduifMJaDpfVRiiHvtWDw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sebastian,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> I did some simple tests on Dove/Cubox with 'netperf -cCD' and
> gso/gro/lro options on
> mv643xx_eth. The tests may not be sufficient, as I am not that into
> net performance testing.

In fact the difference only happens when the NIC has not verified the
checksum itself IIRC, which should be for non-IPv4 traffic. I agree
that it's not easy to test a bridge with a cubox which has a single
port :-) Maybe you'll see a difference in IPv6 traffic or with VLAN
traffic, as I seem to remember this chip does not do cksum offloading
on VLANs, but I could be wrong.

> I tried todays net-next on top of 3.9-rc6 without any gro patch, with
> the initial
> patch (Soeren) and your proposed patch (Willy). The results show that
> both patches
> allow a significant increase in throughput compared to
> netif_receive_skb (!gro, !lro)
> alone. Having gro with lro disabled gives some 2% more throughput
> compared to lro only.

Indeed this is consistent with my memories, since Eric improved the
GRO path, it became faster than LRO on this chip.

Regards,
Willy


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Soeren Moch <smoch@web.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Dale Farnsworth <dale@farnsworth.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:03:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABJ1b_TQDabT1J7ffo5cb1Th=71bcSduifMJaDpfVRiiHvtWDw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sebastian,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> I did some simple tests on Dove/Cubox with 'netperf -cCD' and
> gso/gro/lro options on
> mv643xx_eth. The tests may not be sufficient, as I am not that into
> net performance testing.

In fact the difference only happens when the NIC has not verified the
checksum itself IIRC, which should be for non-IPv4 traffic. I agree
that it's not easy to test a bridge with a cubox which has a single
port :-) Maybe you'll see a difference in IPv6 traffic or with VLAN
traffic, as I seem to remember this chip does not do cksum offloading
on VLANs, but I could be wrong.

> I tried todays net-next on top of 3.9-rc6 without any gro patch, with
> the initial
> patch (Soeren) and your proposed patch (Willy). The results show that
> both patches
> allow a significant increase in throughput compared to
> netif_receive_skb (!gro, !lro)
> alone. Having gro with lro disabled gives some 2% more throughput
> compared to lro only.

Indeed this is consistent with my memories, since Eric improved the
GRO path, it became faster than LRO on this chip.

Regards,
Willy

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-11 15:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-11 12:40 [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 12:40 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 12:40 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 13:13 ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 13:13   ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 13:13   ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 13:13   ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 14:47   ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 14:47     ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 14:47     ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 15:03     ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2013-04-11 15:03       ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:03       ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:03       ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:27       ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 15:27         ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 15:27         ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 15:32         ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:32           ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:32           ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:32           ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:54           ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 15:54             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 15:54             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 16:02             ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 16:02               ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 16:02               ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 16:02               ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 16:10               ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 16:10                 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 16:10                 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 16:59           ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 16:59             ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 16:59             ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 17:13             ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:13               ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:13               ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:31         ` David Miller
2013-04-11 17:31           ` David Miller
2013-04-11 17:31           ` David Miller
2013-04-11 17:35           ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 17:35             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 17:35             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 17:51           ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:51             ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:51             ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:51             ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 17:59             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 17:59               ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 17:59               ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 18:02               ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 18:02                 ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 18:02                 ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 18:02                 ` Willy Tarreau
2013-04-11 15:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 15:54   ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 15:54   ` Eric Dumazet
2013-04-11 17:55 ` Ben Hutchings
2013-04-11 17:55   ` Ben Hutchings
2013-04-11 17:55   ` Ben Hutchings
2013-04-11 18:07   ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 18:07     ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 18:07     ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 18:07     ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2013-04-11 20:22 ` David Miller
2013-04-11 20:22   ` David Miller
2013-04-11 20:22   ` David Miller

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=20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu \
    --to=w@1wt.eu \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=buytenh@wantstofly.org \
    --cc=dale@farnsworth.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=florian@openwrt.org \
    --cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com \
    --cc=smoch@web.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.