From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w@1wt.eu (Willy Tarreau) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:13:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support In-Reply-To: References: <1365684023-9967-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130411131333.GD1910@1wt.eu> <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu> <20130411153256.GH1910@1wt.eu> Message-ID: <20130411171339.GL1910@1wt.eu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:59:11PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM, 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, > > out of curiosity I replayed all tests using netperf/netserver with -6 which > enables ipv6. The overall results remain quite the same here: > enabling support for GRO gives a huge improvement in achievable > throughput, and the difference between Soeren's and your patch is > neglectible. Perfect, thank you for testing this ! Best regards, Willy