From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: ACK behaviour difference LRO/GRO Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:31:22 +0200 Message-ID: <526F725A.1040009@mellanox.com> References: <12EF8D94C6F8734FB2FF37B9FBEDD173585A080F@EXCHANGE.collogia.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <12EF8D94C6F8734FB2FF37B9FBEDD173585A080F-Xnr6BND5kcg29+KCeZIpYi5l6jQMEky5@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Markus Stockhausen , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Yishai Hadas Cc: "s.wendy.cheng-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , Erez Shitrit , Saeed Mahameed List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 28/10/2013 21:34, Markus Stockhausen wrote: > After some quite hard test iterations the problem seems to come from the > IPoIB switch from LRO to GRO between kernels 2.6.37 and 2.6.38. > > I built a test setup with a 2.6.38 kernel and additionaly compiled a 2.6.37 > ib_ipoib module against it. This way I can run a direct comparison > between the old and new module. The major difference between the > two version is inside the ipoib_ib_handle_rx_wc() function: > > 2.6.37: lro_receive_skb(&priv->lro.lro_mgr, skb, NULL); > 2.6.38: napi_gro_receive(&priv->napi, skb); These two commits that went in 3.3 936d7de IPoIB: Stop lying about hard_header_len and use skb->cb to stash LL addresses a0417fa net: Make qdisc_skb_cb upper size bound explicit were supposed to make IPoIB/GRO to work properly, specifically with them, you should see aggregation coming into play I think Yishai Hadas from Mellanox was looking on that too, do we have any insights on the matter? Or. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html