[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1383416907.4291.52.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:28:27 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Oleg A.Arkhangelsky" <sysoleg@...dex.ru>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"hkchu@...gle.com" <hkchu@...gle.com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be" <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"mwdalton@...gle.com" <mwdalton@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: introduce gro_frag_list_enable sysctl
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 21:43 +0400, Oleg A.Arkhangelsky wrote:
>
> 30.10.2013, 06:33, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>:
>
> > GRO should always win, even on a router, because it decreases the
> > number of fundamental operations (routing lookups) that the stack
> > needs to perform.
>
> Yes, unless the case when you're using Linux as IP router which is
> forwarding 500K mixed IP (TCP and UDP) flows traffic @ 10-20 Gbit/s.
> Then GRO is unnecessarily overhead, cause there's no possibility to
> accumulate adequate GRO list in such scenario.
>
This was assuming the aggregation factor was not 0.
Even with 500K flows, you can have typically bursts of two packets per
flow.
Thats one of the reason why I chose to default
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_min_tso_segs to 2
--
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