[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230113114800.357a96e2@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:48:00 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <quic_subashab@...cinc.com>,
Sean Tranchetti <quic_stranche@...cinc.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/3] add tx packets aggregation to ethtool
and rmnet
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 08:16:48 -0800 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > ETHTOOL_A_COALESCE_TX_AGGR_MAX_FRAMES works also as a way to determine
> > that tx aggregation has been enabled by the userspace tool managing
> > the qmi requests, otherwise no aggregation should be performed.
>
> Is there a specific reason why you wouldn't want to take advantage of
> aggregation that is already provided by the stack in the form of
> things such as GSO and the qdisc layer? I know most of the high speed
> NICs are always making use of xmit_more since things like GSO can take
> advantage of it to increase the throughput. Enabling BQL is a way of
> taking that one step further and enabling the non-GSO cases.
The patches had been applied last night by DaveM but FWIW I think
Alex's idea is quite interesting. Even without BQL I believe you'd
get xmit_more set within a single GSO super-frame. TCP sends data
in chunks of 64kB, and you're only aggregating 32kB. If we could
get the same effect without any added latency and user configuration
that'd be great.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists