[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXJAmyKPdu5-JEQ4WOX9fPacO19wyBLOzzn0CwE5rjErcfNYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 08:54:43 -0800
From: John Ousterhout <ouster@...stanford.edu>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 05/12] net: homa: create homa_rpc.h and homa_rpc.c
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 8:50 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 5:44 PM John Ousterhout <ouster@...stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > GRO is implemented in the "full" Homa (and essential for decent
> > performance); I left it out of this initial patch series to reduce the
> > size of the patch. But that doesn't affect the cost of freeing skbs.
> > GRO aggregates skb's into batches for more efficient processing, but
> > the same number of skb's ends up being freed in the end.
>
> Not at all, unless GRO is forced to use shinfo->frag_list.
>
> GRO fast path cooks a single skb for a large payload, usually adding
> as many page fragments as possible.
Are you referring to hardware GRO or software GRO? I was referring to
software GRO, which is what Homa currently implements. With software
GRO there is a stream of skb's coming up from the driver; regardless
of how GRO re-arranges them, each skb eventually has to be freed, no?
-John-
Powered by blists - more mailing lists