From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 17 23:52:34 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3B5A851 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daemon-user@FreeBSD.org) Received: from phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org (phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:ffe0:406a:0:50:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97797DE2 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daemon-user@FreeBSD.org) Received: from phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org (phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org [127.0.1.5]) by phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t5HNqYGL014283 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 GMT (envelope-from daemon-user@phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org) Received: (from daemon-user@localhost) by phabric-backend.isc.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t5HNqYJk014282; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 GMT (envelope-from daemon-user) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 +0000 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org From: "lstewart (Lawrence Stewart)" Reply-to: D1761+325+653ae4cae3043309@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Differential] [Commented On] D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 Thread-Topic: D1761: Extend LRO support to accumulate more than 65535 bytes X-Herald-Rules: none, <28> X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-To: X-Phabricator-Cc: X-Phabricator-Cc: In-Reply-To: References: Thread-Index: M2NjZGMxNGQwNjQ0ZTg4NzgyYzE1NGYxMTJmIFWCCEI= Precedence: bulk X-Phabricator-Sent-This-Message: Yes X-Mail-Transport-Agent: MetaMTA X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-Phabricator-Mail-Tags: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:52:34 -0000 lstewart added a comment. Ok, but that's anecdotal and gives us reviewers nothing to go on - without any methodology or raw data who knows whether the LRO change is solely responsible for the improvement and if it introduced any undesired side effects. It's also possible that with tuning, the same results could have been obtained without the "jumbo" LRO change. As there seems to be some sensitivity around sharing specific details from field deployments which is fine, the path forward is therefore for you and/or Mellanox test engineers to run experiments, capture + analyse data and present it for discussion. You should provide your methodology so anyone wanting to replicate your experiments and results can do so. That being said, I personally feel the energy would be better spent on batching, which would allow a tunable number of 64k correctly formed packets to be passed up the stack which should give 99% of the benefits of this work without the hackiness, plus gives us a win in many other workloads when LRO is unavailable or not used. REPOSITORY rS FreeBSD src repository REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1761 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: hselasky, rrs, glebius, gnn, emaste, rwatson, bz, imp, np, jfv, adrian, lstewart Cc: imp, freebsd-net-list