[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335976071.22133.581.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 18:27:51 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 v2 net-next] net: make GRO aware of skb->head_frag
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 18:19 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 09:16 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> > I was working with the out-of-tree ixgbe because I have the option there
> > of stripping out FCoE and RSC via a couple of build flags. The problem
> > is I don't know if the head frag stuff will work out very well with
> > ixgbe because RSC and FCoE require that we have to use 1K aligned
> > receive buffers. It would require us to make us have to bump up our
> > allocation size by NET_SKB_PAD plus skb_shared_info which would likely
> > force us up to order 1 pages on most platforms.
>
> What is RSC exactly, and why RSC is used in the build_skb() context ?
>
>
It looks like e1000e would be a good candidate for build_skb()
(without packet split)
--
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