Re: [PATCH] - vxlan: gro not effective for intel 82599

[Ramu Ramamurthy <sramamur@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 2015-06-28 14:17, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> 
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Looks like GRO was never implemented for vxlan tunnels. The driver is
>>> simply calling netif_rx instead of using the GRO cells 
>>> infrastructure.
>>> geneve is doing the same thing. For other tunnels which are used in
>>> foo-over-udp (GRE, IPIP, SIT) ip_tunnel_rcv is called which in turn
>>> calls gro_cells_receive.
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> Since v3.14, when a tunneled (say VXLAN/GRE) packets are received on
>> the physical interface, they go through GRO aggregation before being
>> delivered up to the tunnel "device" (e.g either vxlan/gre netdevice or
>> OVS vxlan/gre vport) -- so in that respect, can you elaborate a little
>> further why we want to GRO them again?
>> 
> 
> If we don't have a verifiable checksum from the device GRO is not
> applied to UDP encapsulated packets at the physical interface, but can
> be done at the tunnel. Ramu is seeing poor performance because there
> is no GRO at all is happening, so doing it at the tunnel is an
> improvement. As I described before, avoiding checksum calculation in
> the device NAPI still seems to be a good thing (in my testing I do see
> a slight regression if we were to do the checksum in device NAPI).
> 
> btw, the real "fix" for this is for NICs to provide CHECKSUM_COMPLETE! 
> :-)
> 
> Tom
> 
>> Or.

When I force the sender to set a non-zero UDP checksum for vxlan 
encapsulated tcp-stream,
then, I can see the gro activated at the receiver (82599ES nic),
and the throughput is ~8.5Gbps !

So, to get gro to be effective for the 82599ES receiver, the sender 
needs to set the UDP
checksum.  If the sender does NOT set the UDP checksum (udp-checksum == 
0), then the gro-cells patch suggested by Tom
will perform gro at the tunnel device level.