[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALzJLG9iEgw3ziiGnUWvhazPjge02AfKPXaRt1cq+yh28VacMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:37:46 +0200
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/6] net/mlx5e: Do not reduce LRO WQE size when not
using build_skb
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
>>
>> When rq_type is Striding RQ, no room of SKB_RESERVE is needed
>> as SKB allocation is not done via build_skb.
>>
>> Fixes: e4b85508072b ("net/mlx5e: Slightly reduce hardware LRO size")
>> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
>
> why this one is a bug fix?
> Sound like an optimization from commit log.
It is a regression since ("net/mlx5e: Slightly reduce hardware LRO size").
And we see due to this a small drop in HW LRO performance.
We just fixed the LRO size to be the same as it was before the
offending patch for striding RQ case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists