Re: [iovisor-dev] README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:58:30 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote: > We also care about icache pressure, and GRO/TSO already provides > bundling where it is applicable, without adding insane complexity in > the stacks. Sorry, I cannot resist. The GRO code is really bad regarding

Re: [iovisor-dev] README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 16:20 +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 12/09/16 11:15, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > I'm reacting so loudly, because this is a mental model switch, that > > need to be applied to the full drivers RX path. Also for normal stack > > delivery of SKBs. As both Edward Cree[1]

Re: [iovisor-dev] README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more

On 12/09/16 11:15, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > I'm reacting so loudly, because this is a mental model switch, that > need to be applied to the full drivers RX path. Also for normal stack > delivery of SKBs. As both Edward Cree[1] and I[2] have demonstrated, > there is between 10%-25% perf gain

Re: [iovisor-dev] README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:03:09 +0300 > Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev >> wrote: >> > On Thu,

Re: [iovisor-dev] README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:03:09 +0300 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >> > >> I'm sorry but I

Re: [iovisor-dev] README: [PATCH RFC 11/11] net/mlx5e: XDP TX xmit more

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Alexei Starovoitov via iovisor-dev wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> >> I'm sorry but I have a problem with this patch! > > is it because the variable is called 'xdp_doorbell'? >