From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 23:16:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] sctp: Add GSO support Message-Id: <20160502.191614.608026435064266168.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: marcelo.leitner@gmail.com Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, vyasevich@gmail.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, alexander.duyck@gmail.com From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:33:31 -0300 > This patchset adds sctp GSO support. > > Performance tests indicates that increases throughput by 10% if using > bigger chunk sizes, specially if bigger than MTU. For small chunks, it > doesn't help much if not using heavy firewall rules. > > For small chunks it will probably be of more use once we get something > like MSG_MORE as David Laight had suggested. > > I believe I could address all comments from the RFC attempt. Are these packets idempotent? Ie. if we GRO a bunch of SCTP frames on receive and that GRO frame is forwarded rather than received locally, is the same exact packet stream emitted on transmit?