On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:59:11PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >> I don't have a strong opinion on whether Soeren's or your proposal should > >> be submitted. But I insist on having one of them in, as GRO significantly > >> improves the common use case, is enabled by default, and not as > >> constrained as LRO. > > > > I agree, use yours first, but we should keep an eye on this. Since you have > > everything to run a test, please try to see if you can get netperf to run > > over IPv6, I'm sure the NIC doesn't handle it. > > Willy, > > out of curiosity I replayed all tests using netperf/netserver with -6 which > enables ipv6. The overall results remain quite the same here: > enabling support for GRO gives a huge improvement in achievable > throughput, and the difference between Soeren's and your patch is > neglectible.
Perfect, thank you for testing this ! Best regards, Willy _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
