On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 18:02 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > OK, that makes sense indeed, I didn't think about this case. All > I remember was that the old call achieved a higher packet rate > than napi_gro_receive, but it was on an older kernel and I can't > be more specifics after several months :-/
Its probably true that the GRO handler consumes more cpu for packets that cant be aggregated in the end. Thats a trade off, and maybe we could add in the core stack a device feature to instruct gro handler to do a short cut for packets with no checksum. Or better a sysctl so that a static_branch can be used. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
