[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348841041.5093.2477.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:04:01 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] ipv4: gre: add GRO capability
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 15:03 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> We wouldn't actually do the decapsulation at the point of GRO. This
> is actually pretty similar to what we do with TCP - we merge TCP
> payloads even though we haven't done any real IP processing yet.
> However, we do check firewall rules later if we actually hit the IP
> stack. GRE would work the same way in this case.
>
> What I'm describing is pretty much exactly what NICs will be doing, so
> if that doesn't work we'll have a problem...
GRO ability to truly aggregate data is kind of limited to some
workloads. How NICs will handle interleaved flows I dont really know.
What you describe needs a serious GRO preliminary work, because it
depends on napi_gro_flush() being called from time to time, while we
need something else, more fine grained.
(I am pretty sure GRO needs some love from us, it looks like some
packets can stay a long time in gro_list. It would be nice if it was
able to reorder packets (from same flow) as well)
Anyway, my changes are self-contained in a new file and non intrusive.
As soon as we can provide a better alternative we can revert them ?
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