[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5432936D.7010906@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:04:45 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jbaron@...mai.com
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: macvlan: optimizing the receive path?
On 10/04/2014 08:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:28:13 -0400
>
>> --- a/drivers/net/macvlan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/macvlan.c
>> @@ -321,8 +321,8 @@ static rx_handler_result_t macvlan_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb)
>> skb->dev = dev;
>> skb->pkt_type = PACKET_HOST;
>>
>> - ret = netif_rx(skb);
>> -
>> + macvlan_count_rx(vlan, len, true, 0);
>> + return RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER;
>> out:
>> macvlan_count_rx(vlan, len, ret == NET_RX_SUCCESS, 0);
>> return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
>
> That last argument to macvlan_count_rx() is a bool and thus should be
> specified as "false". Yes I know other areas of this file get it
> wrong too.
>
> Also, what about GRO? Won't we get GRO processing if we do this via
> netif_rx() but not via the RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER route? Just curious...
Wouldn't GRO already happen at the lower level? For macvlan-to-macvlan,
you'd typically have large packets so no need for GRO.
-vlad
--
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