From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [next-queue PATCH 0/3] Add support for GSO partial to Intel NIC drivers Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 08:41:41 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160408203013.12838.63429.stgit@ahduyck-xeon-server> <20160408210103.13096.77973.stgit@ahduyck-xeon-server> <1460185149.2982.6.camel@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Alexander Duyck , Herbert Xu , Tom Herbert , Jesse Gross , Eric Dumazet , intel-wired-lan , Netdev , David Miller To: Jeff Kirsher Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:35304 "EHLO mail-io0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753393AbcDIPlm (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:41:42 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g185so163681561ioa.2 for ; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:41:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1460185149.2982.6.camel@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 17:06 -0400, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> So these are the patches needed to enable tunnel segmentation >> offloads on >> the igb, igbvf, ixgbe, and ixgbevf drivers. In addition this patch >> extends >> the i40e and i40evf drivers to include segmentation support for >> tunnels >> with outer checksums. >> >> The net performance gain for these patches are pretty significant. >> In the >> case of i40e a tunnel with outer checksums showed the following >> improvement: >> Throughput Throughput Local Local Result >> Units CPU Service Tag >> Util Demand >> % >> 14066.29 10^6bits/s 3.49 0.651 "before" >> 20618.16 10^6bits/s 3.09 0.393 "after" >> >> For ixgbe similar results were seen: >> Throughput Throughput Local Local Result >> Units CPU Service Tag >> Util Demand >> % >> 12879.89 10^6bits/s 10.00 0.763 "before" >> 14286.77 10^6bits/s 5.74 0.395 "after" >> >> These patches all rely on the TSO_MANGLEID and GSO_PARTIAL patches so >> I >> would not recommend applying them until those patches have first been >> applied. > > Sorry I did not see this until after I tried applying your series. :-( > > Maybe the two dependent patches should have been in the series, so I > and others do not waste their time. Or not send this until the two > patches were accepted. Sorry I meant to send these as an RFC but sent it out with the next-queue tag as I had gotten a bit distracted. I shouldn't need to resubmit these until the other patches are accepted so I will probably follow that route. Thanks. - Alex