netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list

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, 29 Oct 2013 21:34:41 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hkchu@...gle.com, mwdalton@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list_enable sysctl

On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 12:19 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 09:16:17PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > The thing is this only matters for hosts receiving at line rate on few
> > TCP flows.
> > 
> > A router should not build too big GRO packets, as it adds latencies.
> > 
> > Really, we had to make TSO packets being auto sized, lets not add the
> > syndrome again.
> > 
> > So I do not really understand David concern about emitting a warning.
> > 
> > If a machine is used as a router, building GRO packets of 17 MSS is
> > absolutely fine.
> 
> It's not just routers you know, we use the same code on bridges
> as part of virtualisation.  So it absolutely does matter.
> 

What matters ?

GRO ?

Or making size of GRO packets not too big, or making them bigger ?

Before my patch, GRO packets were 17 MSS, and nobody complained packets
were too small, so what are you saying exactly ?





--
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