Re: [PATCH v2 net-next RFC] Generic XDP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:47:04 -0700

> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Andy Gospodarek <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:28:54PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Andy Gospodarek <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:39:35 -0400
>>>
>>> > As promised, I did some testing today with bnxt_en's implementation
>>> > of XDP and this one.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot Andy, obviously the patch needs some more work.
>>>
>>> I noticed GRO stuff in your profile, and Alexei mentioned this earlier
>>> today.  We probably should elide GRO if generic XDP is attached, since
>>> in particular this makes the skb_linearize() really expensive.
>>
>> Good catch -- I actually thought we were disabling GRO automatically and it
>> looks like we are not.  :-/  I'll send Michael a patch.
> 
> Andy,  I think we only need to disable GRO if we are doing generic
> XDP.  Optimized XDP can still use GRO for the XDP_PASS case.

Right.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Fedora Linux Users]     [Linux SCTP]     [DCCP]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux