netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list

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:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:06:52 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hkchu@...gle.com, mwdalton@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list_enable sysctl

On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 22:02 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:53:48 -0700
> 
> > So should we apply the first fix to avoid the BUG_ON() ?
> 
> Please be more specific, are you talking about splitting up
> this patch in some way?

I am referring to the first version I sent to Christoph :

http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg255452.html

Then I added the sysctl to avoid future packets to get a frag_list in
the first place.

Doing a smart skb_segment() is possible, but this function is already
complex.

I am not sure 64K GRO packets that must be segmented are going to be
faster than 22K packets without segmentation at all (TSO path on xmit)




--
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