Hi Sebastian, On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > I did some simple tests on Dove/Cubox with 'netperf -cCD' and > gso/gro/lro options on > mv643xx_eth. The tests may not be sufficient, as I am not that into > net performance testing.
In fact the difference only happens when the NIC has not verified the checksum itself IIRC, which should be for non-IPv4 traffic. I agree that it's not easy to test a bridge with a cubox which has a single port :-) Maybe you'll see a difference in IPv6 traffic or with VLAN traffic, as I seem to remember this chip does not do cksum offloading on VLANs, but I could be wrong. > I tried todays net-next on top of 3.9-rc6 without any gro patch, with > the initial > patch (Soeren) and your proposed patch (Willy). The results show that > both patches > allow a significant increase in throughput compared to > netif_receive_skb (!gro, !lro) > alone. Having gro with lro disabled gives some 2% more throughput > compared to lro only. Indeed this is consistent with my memories, since Eric improved the GRO path, it became faster than LRO on this chip. Regards, Willy _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
