linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx

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]

Message-ID: <20130411150326.GA19978@1wt.eu>
Date:	Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:03:26 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Florian Fainelli <florian@...nwrt.org>,
	Soeren Moch <smoch@....de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
	Dale Farnsworth <dale@...nsworth.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support

Hi Sebastian,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> I did some simple tests on Dove/Cubox with 'netperf -cCD' and
> gso/gro/lro options on
> mv643xx_eth. The tests may not be sufficient, as I am not that into
> net performance testing.

In fact the difference only happens when the NIC has not verified the
checksum itself IIRC, which should be for non-IPv4 traffic. I agree
that it's not easy to test a bridge with a cubox which has a single
port :-) Maybe you'll see a difference in IPv6 traffic or with VLAN
traffic, as I seem to remember this chip does not do cksum offloading
on VLANs, but I could be wrong.

> I tried todays net-next on top of 3.9-rc6 without any gro patch, with
> the initial
> patch (Soeren) and your proposed patch (Willy). The results show that
> both patches
> allow a significant increase in throughput compared to
> netif_receive_skb (!gro, !lro)
> alone. Having gro with lro disabled gives some 2% more throughput
> compared to lro only.

Indeed this is consistent with my memories, since Eric improved the
GRO path, it became faster than LRO on this chip.

Regards,
Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/