Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:09:19 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Hongjiang Zhang <honzhan@microsoft.com> Cc: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is there any plan to support GRO Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=_AZ7Yo3TBBo6cAZfcEU2yN-L_EKsdof%2BF6uWmWvBxfQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <0fee05072a9741609f47ca53e0797759@SG2PR3002MB0106.064d.mgd.msft.net> References: <c50c383a76a947b0ad2d6d7d71c07403@SG2PR3002MB0106.064d.mgd.msft.net> <20160111154307.GK6605@strugglingcoder.info> <0fee05072a9741609f47ca53e0797759@SG2PR3002MB0106.064d.mgd.msft.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 11 January 2016 at 18:18, Hongjiang Zhang <honzhan@microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi Hiren, > > Thanks for your information. I found some information from internet (https://lwn.net/Articles/358910/), which talks the difference of LRO and GRO on Linux, and it also points out some shortcomings of LRO: breaks things if system works as a router. > > So, how about LRO in FreeBSD? > Could you please share the plan for LRO improvement? It'd be relatively easy to add extra field checks to the LRO code to support the extra sanity checks the Linux GRO implementation is doing. We already do some basic sanity checks to ensure the packets are part of the same TCP stream. I don't know about things like VLANs that have been decapsulated by the NIC; that's likely worth investigating and fixing. But yes, adding more sanity checks isn't hard. Patches gratefully accepted. :) -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=_AZ7Yo3TBBo6cAZfcEU2yN-L_EKsdof%2BF6uWmWvBxfQ>