netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net: introduce dev_set

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]

Message-ID: <20131104062650.GA23755@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:26:50 +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 Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:22:02PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > We had these latencies only dealing with TCP packets, all GRO
> > candidates.
> > 
> > Really, I think we have used GRO at large scale here at Google ;)
> 
> So what NICs were you using that had this issue?

Also if your scenario had all GRO candidates then not using
frag_list would seem to be a bad workaround for an underlying
latency problem.  Rather than arbitrarily limiting the aggregation
to 22K surely it would make more sense to limit it based on your
actual latency requirements?

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