From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sowmini Varadhan Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:01:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20151201190127.GG21252@oracle.com> References: <20151201175953.GC21252@oracle.com> <565DE446.2070609@hpe.com> <20151201184504.GF21252@oracle.com> <565DEBF7.7040304@hpe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Rick Jones Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565DEBF7.7040304@hpe.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On (12/01/15 10:50), Rick Jones wrote: > > Something of a longshot, but are you sure you are still getting > effective CKO/GRO on the receiver? Good question. With ipsec, GRO (like GSO) gets implicitly disabled. But when I explictly disable GRO on receiver, leaving only GSO on sender, I can still get about 6 Gbps for clear traffic. Thus if I could get closer to 6 Gbps for my patch, I'd at least know that it was just GRO that was missing.. but I'm only getting 3 Gbps, which makes me think I missed something else on the sender itself. --Sowmini