Re: [PATCH net-next 00/10] tcp: support non-GSO jumbograms

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On 6/10/26 4:16 PM, Mariusz Klimek wrote:
> On 6/10/26 00:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 19:01:02 +0200 Mariusz Klimek wrote:
>>> I understand your concerns and they're reasonable. I would still like to
>>> proceed with this series, though. What can I do for you to consider this
>>> series? Would it help to submit a few less-significant patches first before
>>> resubmitting this patch series? Should I resubmit it as an RFC?
>>
>> AI tools changed how much we value code, but they did not change much
>> about how one joins a community.
> 
> OK, I'll start with smaller patches to establish myself more
> in the community. I am still interested in eventually getting this
> series through as it can speed up workloads relevant to our company.
> Do you think this patch could potentially be considered down the line?

If you are strongly motivated to do progresses in this area, one thing
you could look at is the root cause of the performance difference
between the veth jumbogram and the same size veth big tcp test: I'm
quite surprised some delta is visible there.

Possibly perf can outline some bottle-neck in the big tcp path that
could be ironed-out.

Also it could be interesting if some devices could do H/W GRO based big TCP.

/P