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