On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3 Jul, 2015, at 04:27, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Also got more throughput for some reason. > > Is the NIC doing software GSO or does it have hardware support? If the > former, it would suggest that software GSO is a universally bad idea and > should be excised. If the latter, GSO should be disabled full stop for this > hardware, so we can stop fannying about with peeling.
:) It is software GSO, and yes, given the 4.0 results for forwarding on this platform, I would consider seriously cutting it down in size. (say, 2 MTU, max, down from 64k, or less - should give better cache behavior, too), That said, TSO/GSO/GRO is everywhere, and peeling, needed. Take the intel ethernet chips, for starters. But it would be best to experiment and benchmark, further. > > - Jonathan Morton > -- Dave Täht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
