[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100825.135726.189708768.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] gro: __napi_gro_receive() optimizations
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:33:51 +0200
> @@ -102,19 +102,9 @@ vlan_gro_common(struct napi_struct *napi, struct vlan_group *grp,
> if (vlan_dev)
> skb->dev = vlan_dev;
> else if (vlan_id)
> - goto drop;
> -
> - for (p = napi->gro_list; p; p = p->next) {
> - NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->same_flow =
> - p->dev == skb->dev && !compare_ether_header(
> - skb_mac_header(p), skb_gro_mac_header(skb));
> - NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->flush = 0;
> - }
> -
> - return dev_gro_receive(napi, skb);
> + return GRO_DROP;
>
> -drop:
> - return GRO_DROP;
> + return __napi_gro_receive(napi, skb);
I was looking at this the other day and considering something
similar but I didn't do it because this now makes the call chain
deeper.
And that can make a performance difference.
I don't want to add this hunk unless some GRO perf regression tests
are done.
Thanks.
--
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