[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1138400428.6686751.1420782286490.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:44:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
To: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] bridge: Add ability to enable TSO
>
> Currently a bridge device turns off TSO feature if no bridge ports
> support it. We can always enable it, since packets can be segmented on
> ports by software as well as on the bridge device.
> This will reduce the number of packets processed in the bridge.
>
> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
> ---
> v2: Use an existing helper function.
>
> net/bridge/br_if.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> index ed307db..81e49fb 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> @@ -424,6 +424,7 @@ netdev_features_t br_features_recompute(struct net_bridge
> *br,
> features = netdev_increment_features(features,
> p->dev->features, mask);
> }
> + features = netdev_add_tso_features(features, mask);
Just a doubt. Are we inducing latency if source has traffic at very low rate.
I mean by default do we need it?
>
> return features;
> }
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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