netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/5] qed/qede: Tunnel hardware GRO support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:09:05 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>,
	Manish Chopra <manish.chopra@...gic.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>,
	"Hannes Frederic Sowa" <hannes@...hat.com>,
	Bert Kenward <bkenward@...arflare.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/5] qed/qede: Tunnel hardware GRO support

> Fundamentally I believe that robust, responsive hardware LRO is not workable as
> the hardware would have to decide to hold onto packets in the hope of merge
> candidates arriving soon after.  Whereas in the software layer (GRO,
> bundling...), the packets are already coming in bursts thanks to the way napi
> polling behaves.

Sounds like an additional coalescing configuration to me [assuming HW supports it].