On 05/24/13 at 03:18pm, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My guess is that there isn't a real different for small packets since > >> everything will be in the cache but it seems worth checking given that > >> this is optimizing a rare case at the expense of the common one. > > > > I really doubt checksumming a SYN/ACK packet is that a performance > > issue. Do you have performance numbers ? > > > > You could always provide a patch to restore this copy/checksum if it > > really gives a benefit, and if people still use NIC not doing this > > checksum. > > If it makes a difference then it needs to be addressed before this > patch goes in since it's the common case. I don't think it will but > that's why I'm asking for numbers.
I ran TCP_CRR to verify the SYN/ACK use case and I did not observe a difference. If you have any specific test in mind I will be glad to run that before posting the 2nd revision. The CPU numbers as reported was seen when testing with pktgen at 1400 bytes with 8K flows and a 10/8 random IP source address. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
