[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131030.151225.1564115611396752473.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:12:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hkchu@...gle.com
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
mwdalton@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list_enable sysctl
From: Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:39:00 -0700
> Not sure I agree - there are two different "forwarding" cases - forwarding
> to another physical NIC (to go out to the wire hence need to do GSO),
> and (for virtualization) forwarding to a virtual NIC and consumed internally
> (e.g., VM). For the latter we should strive to push GSO pkts all the way
> to the VM stack w/o breaking them up. So for virtualization GRO is all
> goodness but not sure about the regular forwarding path. (From the
> perf perspective it boils down to if the cost of GSO/GRO will offset
> the benefit of GRO. Sure if one manages to get the cost close to zero
> than there is not reason to leave GRO always on. But it's still a big if for
> now.)
More precisely, for the regular forwarding path it only needs to be
cheaper than N * cost routing lookup, where N is the number of real
packets contained in the GRO SKB.
--
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