netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/4 v2 net-next] net: make GRO aware of skb->head

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4FA16936.7030804@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 May 2012 10:04:54 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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 05/02/2012 09:27 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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)

Yes, e1000e and e1000 would be good candidates since they have separate
flows for jumbo flows.  Odds are they could probably also take advantage
of the page reuse code I have in igb and ixgbe, but I just haven't had
time to get around to updating them.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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