netdev - Re: Question about LRO/GRO and TCP acknowledgements

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:37:26 +0200
From:	Joris van Rantwijk <joris@...isvr.nl>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about LRO/GRO and TCP acknowledgements

On 2011-06-12, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Think of GRO being a receiver facility against stress/load, typically
> in datacenter.
> 
> Only when receiver is overloaded, GRO kicks in and can coalesce
> several frames before being handled in TCP stack in one run.

Ok, it now becomes clear to me that I have a different scenario in mind
than GRO was designed to handle. I'm interested in LRO as a method
to sustain 1 Gbit through a single TCP connection on a slow embedded
computer.

> If receiver is so loaded that more than 2 frames are coalesced in a
> NAPI run, it certainly helps to not allow sender to increase its cwnd
> more than one SMSS. We probably are right before packet drops anyway.

Right. So unlike TSO, GRO is not a transparent, generally applicable
performance improvement. It's more like a form of graceful degradation,
helping a server to sustain overall throughput when it is already
swamped in TCP traffic.

Thanks for your clarification. This has certainly solved some confusion
on my side.

Joris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html