[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365696644.3887.172.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:10:44 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
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
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 18:02 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> OK, that makes sense indeed, I didn't think about this case. All
> I remember was that the old call achieved a higher packet rate
> than napi_gro_receive, but it was on an older kernel and I can't
> be more specifics after several months :-/
Its probably true that the GRO handler consumes more cpu for packets
that cant be aggregated in the end.
Thats a trade off, and maybe we could add in the core stack a device
feature to instruct gro handler to do a short cut for packets with no
checksum. Or better a sysctl so that a static_branch can be used.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists