[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMiDnv9=nvvJ1m7_taoSncdmgv4GJVR8DiD5t5GCsFig1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:00:07 +0200
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Shani Michaeli <shanim@...lanox.com>,
Ido Shamay <idos@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/8] net/mlx4_en: Remove redundant code from
RX/GRO path
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 01:25 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 18:06 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> >> Remove the code which goes through napi_gro_frags() on the RX path,
>> >> use only napi_gro_receive().
>>
>> > Hmpff... napi_gro_frags() should be faster.
>> > Have you benchmarked this ?
>>
>>
>> yep we did, napi_gro_frags() was somehow better for single stream. Do
>> you think we need to do it the other way around, e.g converge to use
>> napi_gro_frags()?
> napi_gro_frags() is faster because the napi->skb is reused fast (not
> going through kfree_skb()/alloc_skb() for every fragment)
I see. Is this a strong vote to convert the code to use napi_gro_frags
on it's usual track?
Or.
--
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