From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list_enable sysctl Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:06:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1383106012.4857.26.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> References: <1383059555.5464.33.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20131029.194446.2215574000648693370.davem@davemloft.net> <1383094428.4857.16.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20131029.220253.1263087684709722001.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: christoph.paasch@uclouvain.be, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, hkchu@google.com, mwdalton@google.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:41380 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750702Ab3J3EGx (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:06:53 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id y10so375900pdj.38 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:06:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131029.220253.1263087684709722001.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 22:02 -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:53:48 -0700 > > > So should we apply the first fix to avoid the BUG_ON() ? > > Please be more specific, are you talking about splitting up > this patch in some way? I am referring to the first version I sent to Christoph : http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg255452.html Then I added the sysctl to avoid future packets to get a frag_list in the first place. Doing a smart skb_segment() is possible, but this function is already complex. I am not sure 64K GRO packets that must be segmented are going to be faster than 22K packets without segmentation at all (TSO path on xmit)