[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABJ1b_QaEJbuBsqx+J1Pkc7o66S_Rboa7Trnko1mXSK6-UZhfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:59:11 +0200
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
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
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion on whether Soeren's or your proposal should
>> be submitted. But I insist on having one of them in, as GRO significantly
>> improves the common use case, is enabled by default, and not as
>> constrained as LRO.
>
> I agree, use yours first, but we should keep an eye on this. Since you have
> everything to run a test, please try to see if you can get netperf to run
> over IPv6, I'm sure the NIC doesn't handle it.
Willy,
out of curiosity I replayed all tests using netperf/netserver with -6 which
enables ipv6. The overall results remain quite the same here:
enabling support for GRO gives a huge improvement in achievable
throughput, and the difference between Soeren's and your patch is
neglectible.
Sebastian
--
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