From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:27:03 +0200
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:47:49PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: >>> 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. > > 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 think, as per other drivers, LRO should be eliminated completely from all drivers, including this one, and GRO used exclusively instead. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
