From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:07:51 -0700 Message-ID: References: <489C8BEB.8060001@opengridcomputing.com> <489CC58D.4010606@pobox.com> <20080809.224637.69833549.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, swise@opengridcomputing.com, divy@chelsio.com, kxie@chelsio.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, open-iscsi@googlegroups.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu, daisyc@us.ibm.com, wenxiong@us.ibm.com, bhua@us.ibm.com, dm@chelsio.com, leedom@chelsio.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080809.224637.69833549.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:46:37 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Why show these special connections if the user cannot interact with or > shape the stream at all like normal ones? So that an admin can see what connections are open, so that the stack doesn't try to reuse the same 4-tuple for another connection, etc, etc. > And I even wonder, these days, if you probably get %90 or more of the > gain these "optimized" iSCSI connections obtain from things like LRO. Yes, that's the question -- are stateless offloads (plus CRC32C in the CPU etc) going to give good enough performance that the whole TCP offload exercise is pointless? The only issue is that I don't see how to avoid the fundamental 3X increase in memory bandwidth that is chewed up if the NIC can't do direct placement. - R.