netdev - Re: VLAN HW accel, performance advantage?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OF1F55F7C1.0CEB1FB1-ONC1257BDB.0062911D-C1257BDB.0062F868@transmode.se>
Date:	Tue, 3 Sep 2013 20:01:00 +0200
From:	Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VLAN HW accel, performance advantage?

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote on 2013/09/03 17:29:10:
> 
> On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 15:48 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 
> > GRO should be beneficial for bridges if you have bursty TCP streams. 
It
> > is especially beneficial if you also have TSO on the TX side.
> > 
> > Really you're going to have to try it and run benchmarks with your own
> > hardware.
> 
> Note that ucc_geth does not have GRO support (it calls
> netif_receive_skb())
> 
> It doesnt have RX checksuming either, so having to validate
> tcp checksums (before aggregating them in GRO stack) would hurt if
> packets only have to be forwarded.

Yes, the controller only have IP header checksum. Seems there is little to
gain with HW VLAN support for this controller, maybe when I got some spare 
time
then. :)

Thanks guys

  Jocke
--
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