From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vulcan.natalenko.name ([104.207.131.136]:40424 "EHLO vulcan.natalenko.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751457AbeBTUpZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:45:25 -0500 From: Oleksandr Natalenko To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Eric Dumazet , "David S . Miller" , netdev , Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] tcp: remove non GSO code Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:45:23 +0100 Message-ID: <2638137.lzCXOlOYsz@natalenko.name> In-Reply-To: <1519157377.55655.26.camel@gmail.com> References: <20180219195652.242663-1-edumazet@google.com> <1519157377.55655.26.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On =FAter=FD 20. =FAnora 2018 21:09:37 CET Eric Dumazet wrote: > Also you can tune your NIC to accept few MSS per GSO/TSO packet >=20 > ip link set dev eth0 gso_max_segs 2 >=20 > So even if TSO/GSO is there, BBR should not use sk->sk_gso_max_segs to > size its bursts, since burt sizes are also impacting GRO on the > receiver. net-next + 7 patches (6 from the patchset + this one). Before playing with gso_max_segs: BBR+fq sg on: 4.39 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.33 Gbits/sec BBR+fq_codel sg on: 4.02 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.41 Gbits/sec BBR+pfifo_fast sg on: 3.66 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.41 Gbits/sec Reno+fq sg on: 5.69 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.53 Gbits/sec Reno+fq_codel sg on: 6.33 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.50 Gbits/sec Reno+pfifo_fast sg on: 6.26 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.48 Gbits/sec After "ip link set dev eth1 gso_max_segs 2": BBR+fq sg on: 806 Mbits/sec sg off: 886 Mbits/sec BBR+fq_codel sg on: 206 Mbits/sec sg off: 207 Mbits/sec BBR+pfifo_fast sg on: 220 Mbits/sec sg off: 200 Mbits/sec Reno+fq sg on: 2.16 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.27 Gbits/sec Reno+fq_codel sg on: 2.45 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.52 Gbits/sec Reno+pfifo_fast sg on: 2.31 Gbits/sec sg off: 1.54 Gbits/sec Oleksandr