[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131104052321.GA23252@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:23:21 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
hkchu@...gle.com, mwdalton@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net: introduce dev_set_forwarding()
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 09:00:54PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 12:29 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > Have you actually measured this? The latency added by GRO is pure
> > processing overhead. This is tiny when compared to the time NAPI takes
> > to wait.
>
> Please take a look at
>
> 2e71a6f8084e net: gro: selective flush of packets
This is a different problem altogether. I was worried about the
latency in cases where we're idle and waiting for new data, while
you're worried about the latency in the CPU-bound case.
I think we can definitely improve our behaviour the CPU-bound case.
Right now if we encounter something we can't hold for GRO we
start processing it right away. Instead we can place it in a
list for later processing together with the GRO packets.
This way GRO packets are not penalised by non-GRO packets.
You can then use the usual NAPI budget to minimise latency and
ensure scheduling fairness.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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