[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UeBjhSpnpFz++0bWy8D4wFCLHE5iFSUy1WS_QHCG8BchQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 08:41:41 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [next-queue PATCH 0/3] Add support for GSO partial to Intel NIC drivers
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 17:06 -0400, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> So these are the patches needed to enable tunnel segmentation
>> offloads on
>> the igb, igbvf, ixgbe, and ixgbevf drivers. In addition this patch
>> extends
>> the i40e and i40evf drivers to include segmentation support for
>> tunnels
>> with outer checksums.
>>
>> The net performance gain for these patches are pretty significant.
>> In the
>> case of i40e a tunnel with outer checksums showed the following
>> improvement:
>> Throughput Throughput Local Local Result
>> Units CPU Service Tag
>> Util Demand
>> %
>> 14066.29 10^6bits/s 3.49 0.651 "before"
>> 20618.16 10^6bits/s 3.09 0.393 "after"
>>
>> For ixgbe similar results were seen:
>> Throughput Throughput Local Local Result
>> Units CPU Service Tag
>> Util Demand
>> %
>> 12879.89 10^6bits/s 10.00 0.763 "before"
>> 14286.77 10^6bits/s 5.74 0.395 "after"
>>
>> These patches all rely on the TSO_MANGLEID and GSO_PARTIAL patches so
>> I
>> would not recommend applying them until those patches have first been
>> applied.
>
> Sorry I did not see this until after I tried applying your series. :-(
>
> Maybe the two dependent patches should have been in the series, so I
> and others do not waste their time. Or not send this until the two
> patches were accepted.
Sorry I meant to send these as an RFC but sent it out with the
next-queue tag as I had gotten a bit distracted.
I shouldn't need to resubmit these until the other patches are
accepted so I will probably follow that route.
Thanks.
- Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists