On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/7/14 8:50 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Lori Jakab <loja...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/6/14 4:06 AM, Pravin Shelar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have you tried running GSO traffic over lisp using OVS compat GSO code >>>>>>>> and upstream GSO code? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't and I'm not sure what's the right way to do that. I do my >>>>>>> testing >>>>>>> between to VMs. I see with ethtool that GSO is enabled on the virtual >>>>>>> NICs >>>>>>> in the VMs, and on the br0 interface after the switch is created. >>>>>>> >>>>>> This is fine. >>>>>> >>>>>>> To test that I can enable/disable GSO I download a 30MB file over HTTP >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> look in Wireshark for packets satisfying "ip.len > 1500". With TSO >>>>>>> enabled, >>>>>>> I do get such packets. Not with GSO though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you point me to the right way to test this? >>>>>> >>>>>> netperf test will to the trick, But you need to test with different >>>>>> kernel versions. >>>>>> - kernel < 3.10 where ovs configure could not find symbol >>>>>> "gre_handle_offloads" >>>>>> - kernel 3.17 which has all the offload used by OVS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have one VM with Fedora 18 and kernel 3.7.2-201.fc18.x86_64, and the >>>>> other >>>>> with Fedora 19 and kernel 3.14.19-100.fc19.x86_64. I tried netperf in >>>>> both >>>>> directions. In both cases the OVS + LISP performance vs. direct link >>>>> performace was one order of magnitude worse. Is that to be expected? Is >>>>> this a good enough test for GSO traffic? If yes, I will send out v7. >>>>> >>>> Can you give me numbers the you are seeing? One way to test GSO is to >>>> look for any dropped packet at source, tcpdump can help with that. You >>>> also need to set physical MTU large enough for encapsulated packet. >>> >>> >>> I found packet loss unrelated to GSO, I need to add layer 3 support to >>> ovs_packet_cmd_execute() as well. I'll get back to you after I finish this >>> and I'm able to do the tests. >>> >> >> ok. >> >> What are you plans regarding L3 GRE support? We need it to upstream this >> work. > > I assume that you mean because LISP isn't upstream yet? I think we > need to try to push it again so that we can resolve the differences > from upstream. > Yes, I was referring to LISP upstreaming. I am not sure about plans. Are we still trying to add support for LISP network device?
> However, I just talked to Thomas Morin and he plans to work on L3 GRE > again on top of these patches soon. ok. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
