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 366282C00BF for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 03:52:07 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:51:47 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support Message-ID: <20130411175147.GN1910@1wt.eu> References: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, jason@lakedaemon.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, smoch@web.de, paulus@samba.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dale@farnsworth.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, florian@openwrt.org, buytenh@wantstofly.org, sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:31:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Sebastian Hesselbarth > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:27:03 +0200 > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > 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 think, as per other drivers, LRO should be eliminated completely from > all drivers, including this one, and GRO used exclusively instead. Eric provided me with one such experimental patch in the past for this driver. It worked for me but we never tried to clean it up to propose it for inclusion. If anyone is interested, I might still have it in experimental shape. Willy From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w@1wt.eu (Willy Tarreau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:51:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support In-Reply-To: <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: <20130411175147.GN1910@1wt.eu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:31:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Sebastian Hesselbarth > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:27:03 +0200 > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > 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 think, as per other drivers, LRO should be eliminated completely from > all drivers, including this one, and GRO used exclusively instead. Eric provided me with one such experimental patch in the past for this driver. It worked for me but we never tried to clean it up to propose it for inclusion. If anyone is interested, I might still have it in experimental shape. 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 S965100Ab3DKRwR (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:52:17 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:32873 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964931Ab3DKRwQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:52:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:51:47 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: David Miller Cc: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com, andrew@lunn.ch, jason@lakedaemon.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, florian@openwrt.org, smoch@web.de, paulus@samba.org, buytenh@wantstofly.org, dale@farnsworth.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support Message-ID: <20130411175147.GN1910@1wt.eu> References: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> 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 01:31:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Sebastian Hesselbarth > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:27:03 +0200 > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > 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 think, as per other drivers, LRO should be eliminated completely from > all drivers, including this one, and GRO used exclusively instead. Eric provided me with one such experimental patch in the past for this driver. It worked for me but we never tried to clean it up to propose it for inclusion. If anyone is interested, I might still have it in experimental shape. 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 19:51:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20130411175147.GN1910@1wt.eu> References: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, jason@lakedaemon.net, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, smoch@web.de, paulus@samba.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dale@farnsworth.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, florian@openwrt.org, buytenh@wantstofly.org, sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com To: David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130411.133119.913809939413807690.davem@davemloft.net> 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 01:31:19PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Sebastian Hesselbarth > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:27:03 +0200 > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > 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 think, as per other drivers, LRO should be eliminated completely from > all drivers, including this one, and GRO used exclusively instead. Eric provided me with one such experimental patch in the past for this driver. It worked for me but we never tried to clean it up to propose it for inclusion. If anyone is interested, I might still have it in experimental shape. Willy