From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 1wt.eu (1wt.eu [62.212.114.60]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6B82C00AC for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:03:15 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:02:58 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support Message-ID: <20130411160258.GI1910@1wt.eu> References: <1365684023-9967-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130411131333.GD1910@1wt.eu> <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411153256.GH1910@1wt.eu> <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Soeren Moch , Paul Mackerras , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Dale Farnsworth , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Florian Fainelli , Lennert Buytenhek , Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 17:32 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether Soeren's or your proposal should > > > be submitted. But I insist on having one of them in, as GRO significantly > > > improves the common use case, is enabled by default, and not as > > > constrained as LRO. > > > > I agree, use yours first, but we should keep an eye on this. Since you have > > everything to run a test, please try to see if you can get netperf to run > > over IPv6, I'm sure the NIC doesn't handle it. > > Willy, testing the checksum in the NIC driver itself prevents the stack > doing GRO even if the NIC could not checksum the packet, as in GRE > tunneling for example. > > So Sebastien patch is better IMHO : Just call the napi gro handler and > let core stack handles the details ;) OK, that makes sense indeed, I didn't think about this case. All I remember was that the old call achieved a higher packet rate than napi_gro_receive, but it was on an older kernel and I can't be more specifics after several months :-/ Cheers, Willy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w@1wt.eu (Willy Tarreau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:02:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support In-Reply-To: <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1365684023-9967-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130411131333.GD1910@1wt.eu> <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411153256.GH1910@1wt.eu> <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Message-ID: <20130411160258.GI1910@1wt.eu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 17:32 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether Soeren's or your proposal should > > > be submitted. But I insist on having one of them in, as GRO significantly > > > improves the common use case, is enabled by default, and not as > > > constrained as LRO. > > > > I agree, use yours first, but we should keep an eye on this. Since you have > > everything to run a test, please try to see if you can get netperf to run > > over IPv6, I'm sure the NIC doesn't handle it. > > Willy, testing the checksum in the NIC driver itself prevents the stack > doing GRO even if the NIC could not checksum the packet, as in GRE > tunneling for example. > > So Sebastien patch is better IMHO : Just call the napi gro handler and > let core stack handles the details ;) OK, that makes sense indeed, I didn't think about this case. All I remember was that the old call achieved a higher packet rate than napi_gro_receive, but it was on an older kernel and I can't be more specifics after several months :-/ Cheers, Willy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753137Ab3DKQDX (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:03:23 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:32840 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751722Ab3DKQDV (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:02:58 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Sebastian Hesselbarth , Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli , Soeren Moch , Paul Mackerras , Lennert Buytenhek , Dale Farnsworth , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support Message-ID: <20130411160258.GI1910@1wt.eu> References: <1365684023-9967-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130411131333.GD1910@1wt.eu> <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411153256.GH1910@1wt.eu> <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 17:32 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether Soeren's or your proposal should > > > be submitted. But I insist on having one of them in, as GRO significantly > > > improves the common use case, is enabled by default, and not as > > > constrained as LRO. > > > > I agree, use yours first, but we should keep an eye on this. Since you have > > everything to run a test, please try to see if you can get netperf to run > > over IPv6, I'm sure the NIC doesn't handle it. > > Willy, testing the checksum in the NIC driver itself prevents the stack > doing GRO even if the NIC could not checksum the packet, as in GRE > tunneling for example. > > So Sebastien patch is better IMHO : Just call the napi gro handler and > let core stack handles the details ;) OK, that makes sense indeed, I didn't think about this case. All I remember was that the old call achieved a higher packet rate than napi_gro_receive, but it was on an older kernel and I can't be more specifics after several months :-/ Cheers, Willy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:02:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20130411160258.GI1910@1wt.eu> References: <1365684023-9967-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130411131333.GD1910@1wt.eu> <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411153256.GH1910@1wt.eu> <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Soeren Moch , Paul Mackerras , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Dale Farnsworth , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Florian Fainelli , Lennert Buytenhek , Sebastian Hesselbarth To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1365695675.3887.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 17:32 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether Soeren's or your proposal should > > > be submitted. But I insist on having one of them in, as GRO significantly > > > improves the common use case, is enabled by default, and not as > > > constrained as LRO. > > > > I agree, use yours first, but we should keep an eye on this. Since you have > > everything to run a test, please try to see if you can get netperf to run > > over IPv6, I'm sure the NIC doesn't handle it. > > Willy, testing the checksum in the NIC driver itself prevents the stack > doing GRO even if the NIC could not checksum the packet, as in GRE > tunneling for example. > > So Sebastien patch is better IMHO : Just call the napi gro handler and > let core stack handles the details ;) OK, that makes sense indeed, I didn't think about this case. All I remember was that the old call achieved a higher packet rate than napi_gro_receive, but it was on an older kernel and I can't be more specifics after several months :-/ Cheers, Willy