[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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