netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: mana: Allow tso_max_size to go up-to GSO_MAX

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANn89iJ3cT6BWLmFpdkxn6EeeLTM7rF0pwWGArq1gG8pk8orsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:55:54 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Shradha Gupta <shradhagupta@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>, 
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, 
	Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>, Konstantin Taranov <kotaranov@...rosoft.com>, 
	Souradeep Chakrabarti <schakrabarti@...ux.microsoft.com>, Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>, 
	Shradha Gupta <shradhagupta@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: mana: Allow tso_max_size to go up-to GSO_MAX_SIZE

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 5:40 AM Shradha Gupta
<shradhagupta@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Allow the max aggregated pkt size to go up-to GSO_MAX_SIZE for MANA NIC.
> This patch only increases the max allowable gso/gro pkt size for MANA
> devices and does not change the defaults.
> Following are the perf benefits by increasing the pkt aggregate size from
> legacy gso_max_size value(64K) to newer one(up-to 511K)
>
> for i in {1..10}; do netperf -t TCP_RR  -H 10.0.0.5 -p50000 -- -r80000,80000
> -O MIN_LATENCY,P90_LATENCY,P99_LATENCY,THROUGHPUT|tail -1; done

Was this tested with IPv6 ?