From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@voltaire.com>
To: Jan-Bernd Themann <THEMANN@de.ibm.com>,
Eli Cohen <eli@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
Vladimir Sokolovsky <vlad@mellanox.co.il>,
OpenFabrics General <general@lists.openfabrics.org>
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH] net/inet_lro: remove setting skb->ip_summed when not LRO-able
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:47:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4862304D.2050306@voltaire.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFEBCC17DD.4CE7F0B2-ONC1257473.003ED3DA-C1257473.003EE40F@de.ibm.com>
Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
> no, what I meant is that it is only not needed at that particular
> place as the packet is not handled by LRO. Without this line the
> driver can set an individual value for each SKB that is not
> aggregated if wished. For example when the packet is not a valid IP
> packet. However, removing all ip_summed fields impacts the fragment
> lro mode. There we have to set some value for not aggregated packets.
> The SKBs are generated within the LRO engine. If desired (and if there
> is HW that wants to use that) we can pass that value for each provided
> fragment. This would add one additional paramter to the already 8
> parameters of __lro_proc_segment. That is of course possible.
OK, understood, both points.
Eli, lets add to this patch a comment in inet_lro.h saying that the
value of lro_mgr->ip_summed is ignored by the core lro code for drivers
that use the non fragmented mode. Also for the ipoib patch, lets not set
this value.
> I think that for valid TCP/IP packets this value should always be the
> same as the hardware either support the set ip_summed_aggr value for
> TCP/IPv4 packets, or not. Maybe that assumption is not right, but so
> far I haven't seen any hardware that behaves in a different way.
Yes, for TCP/IPv4 you seem to be right and here the problem was in the
lro patch to ipoib which set this value blindly regardless of the HW
capabilities, I asked Vlad to change this in the next version of the
patch. As for other types of traffic, I was thinking that allowing the
driver to set it per packet makes a better isolation between the core
lro code to the driver, but this is not major issue.
> yes, that is possible. An increased delay is the prise of LRO :-)
>
Is there some pointer you might be able to provide on LRO benchmark for
small packets and/or mixed small/large packet streams?
Or.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-25 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-24 14:39 [PATCH] net/inet_lro: remove setting skb->ip_summed when not LRO-able Eli Cohen
2008-06-25 9:26 ` [ofa-general] " Or Gerlitz
2008-06-25 11:28 ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2008-06-25 11:47 ` Or Gerlitz [this message]
2008-06-25 12:10 ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2008-06-25 12:15 ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2008-06-25 12:30 ` Eli Cohen
2008-06-25 13:01 ` Or Gerlitz
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=4862304D.2050306@voltaire.com \
--to=ogerlitz@voltaire.com \
--cc=THEMANN@de.ibm.com \
--cc=eli@dev.mellanox.co.il \
--cc=general@lists.openfabrics.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=vlad@mellanox.co.il \
/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.