| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110612213726.4d203a6e@konijn> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:37:26 +0200 From: Joris van Rantwijk <joris@...isvr.nl> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about LRO/GRO and TCP acknowledgements On 2011-06-12, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > Think of GRO being a receiver facility against stress/load, typically > in datacenter. > > Only when receiver is overloaded, GRO kicks in and can coalesce > several frames before being handled in TCP stack in one run. Ok, it now becomes clear to me that I have a different scenario in mind than GRO was designed to handle. I'm interested in LRO as a method to sustain 1 Gbit through a single TCP connection on a slow embedded computer. > If receiver is so loaded that more than 2 frames are coalesced in a > NAPI run, it certainly helps to not allow sender to increase its cwnd > more than one SMSS. We probably are right before packet drops anyway. Right. So unlike TSO, GRO is not a transparent, generally applicable performance improvement. It's more like a form of graceful degradation, helping a server to sustain overall throughput when it is already swamped in TCP traffic. Thanks for your clarification. This has certainly solved some confusion on my side. Joris. -- 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