> TSO and TOE both help significantly with the per-packet costs. They are > effectively equivalent here to using larger packets. Doing zero-copy and > checksum offloading helps with the per-byte costs, and is possible today > with stock Linux, and I believe most TOE implementations do. But TOE and > TSO in and of themselves *do not* help with the per-byte costs. TOE > currently has an advantage over TSO because it reduces the receive path > costs in both ack and data processing.
All good points. However, unlike LRO, TOE actually can also reduce per-byte costs on receive by allowing zero copy with DDP. > This is certainly a concern. Fixing these issues IMHO is globally more > important (and architecturally more desirable) than TOEs. Some may > disagree. :-) If you talk to the IEEE802.3 folks, they give no hope of the current state of affairs changing. Plus, jumbo frames benefits really don't apply to all applications, only to large transfers, and as you say above, per-byte costs are still there. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
