[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d60c6185b8394da02479100981fa3f1306d9c81f.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:14:12 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 4/4] net: gro: move L3 flush checks to
tcp_gro_receive
Hi,
On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 16:02 +0100, Richard Gobert wrote:
> This patch is meaningful by itself - removing checks against non-relevant
> packets and making the flush/flush_id checks in a single place.
I'm personally not sure this patch is a win. The code churn is
significant. I understand this is for performance's sake, but I don't
see the benefit???
The changelog shows that perf reports slightly lower figures for
inet_gro_receive(). That is expected, as this patch move code out of
such functio. What about inet_gro_flush()/tcp_gro_receive() where such
code is moved?
Additionally the reported deltas is within noise level according to my
personal experience with similar tests.
I think we are better off without this patch.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists