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

Date:	Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:29:10 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VLAN HW accel, performance advantage?

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.



--
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