From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E6324521 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 03:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70D95C433C7; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 03:31:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1692847882; bh=2MxDhV6CHEltlY23Xu4O5PADIqsFvP60GAhGKOsthbM=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ind9fMCZOuF0I/Zri5pudAvh2EZZ2MqNKvNno6SYRbtDwJuQw2Wn6TaU2ergX2AP3 c0Ngv0sIvTN8Zi/a7Lgb2SW3GZsy5DN5qvAZVgtK6YrOodWk8YkzlxnrE7fZtf9X3N rrkyRuGjeXCh22ckIKaAUc0I7S19PZpv9K3PMYqOg0F2UgvaLd/zn8z+3i+3wB0Ha3 ZNk3usAGueU6+nr42Tw+lFBdviThU8sD5OnZgwaEOTG4j7sQ4Nj/HHdZ6p1p5+xKpE ZwlhlUkFYVi+njp9/b0nfKm2MJ0sFZ9mWZ+gVO7CJJwWyz5+6PeeZJ4yCHHWifTu+o N6vQl8Rgpp/PA== Message-ID: <90a27f82-ff90-f8ce-ccf3-e1d8909b744d@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 20:31:21 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] gro: decrease size of CB Content-Language: en-US To: Gal Pressman , Richard Gobert , davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, aleksander.lobakin@intel.com, lixiaoyan@google.com, lucien.xin@gmail.com, alexanderduyck@fb.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20230601160924.GA9194@debian> <20230601161407.GA9253@debian> From: David Ahern In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 8/23/23 7:43 AM, Gal Pressman wrote: >> With veth and namespaces I expect up to 25-30G performance levels, >> depending on the test. When something fundamental breaks like this patch >> a drop to < 1G would be a red flag, so there is value to the test. > Circling back to this, I believe such test already exists: > tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh > > And it indeed fails before Richard's fix. > > I guess all that's left is to actually run these tests 😄? hmmm... if that is the case, the Makefile shows: TEST_PROGS += udpgro_fwd.sh so it should be run. I wonder why one of the many bots did not flag it.