From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:35:52 -0700
Message-ID: <66ce1fb6-120f-ae49-704a-69915b317c6b@gmail.com>
References: <20180417200059.30154-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
 <20180417201557.GA4080@oracle.com>
 <CAF=yD-+XC-KNYe136k-mYfOCEcP_1rORwYkFbZ1mVdH_q=bY7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180417204829.GK7632@oracle.com>
 <CAF=yD-+psRcT+666fCgh8f2r8Raq_D4yCsEycKrNpW-tan1-Yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <74f0b490-de65-f05a-6332-6deaeb0fac2a@intel.com>
 <CAF=yD-KhNrcZBQizK+RtFq4Lx-ExntdLR69qz_2beRo8d7XOTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180418123103.GC19633@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
To: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:43819 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753180AbeDRNfz (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:35:55 -0400
Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id j11so921938pff.10
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180418123103.GC19633@oracle.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>



On 04/18/2018 05:31 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> 
> I went through the patch set and the code looks fine- it extends existing
> infra for TCP/GSO to UDP.
> 
> One thing that was not clear to me about the API: shouldn't UDP_SEGMENT
> just be automatically determined in the stack from the pmtu? Whats
> the motivation for the socket option for this? also AIUI this can be
> either a per-socket or a per-packet option?
> 
> However, I share Sridhar's concerns about the very fundamental change
> to UDP message boundary semantics here.  

There is no change at all.

This will only be used as a mechanism to send X packets of same size.

So instead of X system calls , one system call.

One traversal of some expensive part of the host stack.

The content on the wire should be the same.