Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

From: Hans Westgaard Ry Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 09:26:57 +0100 > Devices may have limits on the number of fragments in an skb they support. > Current codebase uses a constant as maximum for number of fragments one > skb can hold and use. > When enabling

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:26:57AM +0100, Hans Westgaard Ry wrote: > Devices may have limits on the number of fragments in an skb they support. > Current codebase uses a constant as maximum for number of fragments one > skb can hold and use. > When enabling scatter/gather and running traffic with

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On 03.02.2016 12:25, Herbert Xu wrote: On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:26:57AM +0100, Hans Westgaard Ry wrote: Devices may have limits on the number of fragments in an skb they support. Current codebase uses a constant as maximum for number of fragments one skb can hold and use. When enabling

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:24 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> If this is only meant to be a performance modification and is only >> really targeted at TCP TSO/GRO then all I ask is that we use a name >> like

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 20:20 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > Agreed that it feels like a hack, but a rather simple one. I would > > consider this to be just a performance improvement. We certainly need > > a slow-path when

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On 03.02.2016 13:20, Herbert Xu wrote: On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: Agreed that it feels like a hack, but a rather simple one. I would consider this to be just a performance improvement. We certainly need a slow-path when virtio drivers submit gso

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Hans Westgaard Ry wrote: > Devices may have limits on the number of fragments in an skb they support. > Current codebase uses a constant as maximum for number of fragments one > skb can hold and use. > When enabling scatter/gather and

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > Agreed that it feels like a hack, but a rather simple one. I would > consider this to be just a performance improvement. We certainly need > a slow-path when virtio drivers submit gso packets to the stack (and > already

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 09:43 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > Read the history. I still say it is best if we don't accept a partial > solution. If we are going to introduce the sysctl as a core item it > should function as a core item and not as something that belongs to > TCP only. But this

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 07:58 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > +++ b/net/core/sysctl_net_core.c > > I really don't think these changes belong in the core. Below you only > modify the TCP code path so this more likely belongs in the TCP path > unless you are going to guarantee that all other code

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 07:58 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> > +++ b/net/core/sysctl_net_core.c >> >> I really don't think these changes belong in the core. Below you only >> modify the TCP code path so this more likely

RE: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

From: Herbert Xu > Sent: 03 February 2016 12:21 > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:36:21PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > Agreed that it feels like a hack, but a rather simple one. I would > > consider this to be just a performance improvement. We certainly need > > a slow-path when virtio

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:24 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > If this is only meant to be a performance modification and is only > really targeted at TCP TSO/GRO then all I ask is that we use a name > like tcp_max_gso_frags and relocate the sysctl to the TCP section. > Otherwise if we are actually

Re: [PATCH v3] net:Add sysctl_max_skb_frags

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 09:43 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> Read the history. I still say it is best if we don't accept a partial >> solution. If we are going to introduce the sysctl as a core item it >> should