Date:	Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:37:31 +0100
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
To:	Fan Du <fengyuleidian0615@...il.com>
CC:	Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net] net: restore lro after device detached from bridge

On 02/03/2015 08:08 AM, Fan Du wrote:
> 于 2015年02月02日 18:35, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>> On 02/01/2015 06:20 PM, Fan Du wrote:
>>> 于 2015年01月31日 04:48, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>>>> On 01/30/2015 04:33 AM, Fan Du wrote:
>>>>> Either detaching a device from bridge or switching a device
>>>>> out of FORWARDING state, the original lro feature should
>>>>> possibly be enabled for good reason, e.g. hw feature like
>>>>> receive side coalescing could come into play.
>>>>>
>>>>> BEFORE:
>>>>> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ens806f0/forwarding && ethtool -k 
>>>>> ens806f0 | grep large
>>>>> large-receive-offload: off
>>>>>
>>>>> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ens806f0/forwarding && ethtool -k 
>>>>> ens806f0 | grep large
>>>>> large-receive-offload: off
>>>>>
>>>>> AFTER:
>>>>> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ens806f0/forwarding && ethtool -k 
>>>>> ens806f0 | grep large
>>>>> large-receive-offload: off
>>>>>
>>>>> echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ens806f0/forwarding && ethtool -k 
>>>>> ens806f0 | grep large
>>>>> large-receive-offload: on
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>
>>>>> Fixes: 0187bdfb0567 ("net: Disable LRO on devices that are 
>>>>> forwarding")
>>>>
>>>
>>>> First off this isn't a "fix".  This is going to likely break more than
>>>> it fixes.  The main reason why LRO is disabled is because it can cause
>>>> more harm then it helps.  Since GRO is available we should err on the
>>>> side of caution since enabling LRO/RSC can have undesirable side 
>>>> effects
>>>> in a number of cases.
>>>
>>> I think you are talking about bad scenarios when net device is 
>>> attached to a bridge.
>>> Then what's the good reason user has to pay extra cpu power for 
>>> using GRO, instead
>>> of using hw capable LRO/RSC when this net device is detached from 
>>> bridge acting as
>>> a standalone NIC?
>>>
>>> Note, SRC is defaulted to *ON* in practice for ALL ixgbe NICs, as 
>>> same other RSC capable
>>> NICs. Attaching net device to a bridge _once_ should not changed its 
>>> default configuration,
>>> moreover it's a subtle change without any message that user won't 
>>> noticed at all.
>
>> No, RSC only has benefits for IPv4/TCP large packets.  However
>> historically there have been issues seen w/ small packet performance
>> with RSC enabled.
>
> Only when parallel client exceeds 4, gro trumps lro performance on my 
> testbed for small packets.
> The difference comes from the fact that TCP RSS hash flows from 
> clients into different NIC queues
> for multiple cpu, while RSC engine inside NIC has limit resource 
> compared with that of cpu used by gro.
>
> NICs: 82599EB
> server:ipserf -s -B 192.168.5.1
> client:iperf  -c 192.168.5.1 -i 1 -M 100 -P x
>
> -P   Bandwidth/lro on        Bandwidth/lro off
>                gro off                 gro on
>
> 1     2.31 Gbits/sec           947 Mbits/sec
> 2     3.09 Gbits/sec          1.97 Gbits/sec
> 3     3.19 Gbits/sec          2.70 Gbits/sec
> 4     3.16 Gbits/sec          3.39 Gbits/sec
> 5     3.23 Gbits/sec          3.33 Gbits/sec
> 6     3.19 Gbits/sec          3.74 Gbits/sec
> 7     3.18 Gbits/sec          3.88 Gbits/sec
> 8     3.17 Gbits/sec          3.24 Gbits/sec
> 9     3.16 Gbits/sec          3.70 Gbits/sec
> 10    3.15 Gbits/sec          3.76 Gbits/sec
> 11    3.10 Gbits/sec          4.03 Gbits/sec
> 12    3.11 Gbits/sec          3.13 Gbits/sec
> 13    3.12 Gbits/sec          4.12 Gbits/sec
> 14    3.07 Gbits/sec          4.04 Gbits/sec
> 15    3.03 Gbits/sec          3.14 Gbits/sec
> 16    2.99 Gbits/sec          3.93 Gbits/sec
>
>
>
>
> Some have been addressed, however there are still

The point I think you are not getting is that bulk throughput 
performance does not justify enabling a feature that may impact 
stability or possibly harm small packet performance.

There are more reasons than routing and bridging to disable LRO. Those 
two reasons though were so bad that we couldn't allow end users to 
possibly encounter them so we disabled the feature for them.

There are a number of other cases where LRO might be disabled as in the 
possible latency case I reported.  As such you should not be enabling 
LRO just because only two of the possible issues have now been addressed.

It is best to leave this up to the end-user to re-enable.  If you are 
seeing the feature disabled as a result of some init script on the 
system you may want to look at re-enabling it as a part of some other 
init script that you use when disabling routing or bridging.

- Alex
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists