[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b23e06d-f3b3-65b3-2aa6-363812e71817@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:07:54 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 bpf-next 00/15] xdp_flow: Flow offload to XDP
On 10/28/19 4:08 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>> Either way, bypassing the bridge has mixed results: latency improves
>>> but throughput takes a hit (no GRO).
>>
>> Well, for some traffic mixes XDP should be able to keep up without GRO.
>> And longer term, we probably want to support GRO with XDP anyway
>
> Do you have any numbers to back up your expected throughput decrease,
> due to lack of GRO? Or is it a theory?
>
of course. I'll start a new thread about this rather than go too far
down this tangent relative to the current patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists