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. Sebastian _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
