Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 +0000 From: "lstewart (Lawrence Stewart)" <phabric-noreply@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: [Differential] [Commented On] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes Message-ID: <f78cf73aee5417886ad51bda63b08549@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-wifan4aus5qtbwh2gnxc-req@FreeBSD.org> References: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-wifan4aus5qtbwh2gnxc-req@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
lstewart added a comment. Ok, but that's anecdotal and gives us reviewers nothing to go on - without any methodology or raw data who knows whether the LRO change is solely responsible for the improvement and if it introduced any undesired side effects. It's also possible that with tuning, the same results could have been obtained without the "jumbo" LRO change. As there seems to be some sensitivity around sharing specific details from field deployments which is fine, the path forward is therefore for you and/or Mellanox test engineers to run experiments, capture + analyse data and present it for discussion. You should provide your methodology so anyone wanting to replicate your experiments and results can do so. That being said, I personally feel the energy would be better spent on batching, which would allow a tunable number of 64k correctly formed packets to be passed up the stack which should give 99% of the benefits of this work without the hackiness, plus gives us a win in many other workloads when LRO is unavailable or not used. REPOSITORY rS FreeBSD src repository REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1761 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: hselasky, rrs, glebius, gnn, emaste, rwatson, bz, imp, np, jfv, adrian, lstewart Cc: imp, freebsd-net-list
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f78cf73aee5417886ad51bda63b08549>