From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 22 17:46:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E89F106566B; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:46:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502208FC0A; Tue, 22 May 2012 17:46:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so6459693wgb.31 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jWywyyv1Z7vxDdU/5l56L9C3cJh6UwK/J1I76zawWPU=; b=iWLwex6oV2X9ugobH7KsYEItb2DDWoP3gZJjCy2biPL1Qs8znsA9JF4PThOUNwa73i KNpawQTgXGbL2281N+KKiWCopDWl1Az9W0aKnsYy1AkSmoVf04Xh5FPuf+es846U/n6B jD5BsYpQJVVAaa/mv6QgGMgeBSbbEoABXYyiUx0Mz46YefFQSOicw+sELEd1dxMSwR5g 3TPAl3VZ0YzfKhFv5VDS5UNH+omLlQVjm+Dac6WDUUKQbAoiqqHYhaYLMZFhKd8agoO7 cURG3dx+e14aSS/f1znQWA8p/kuE1j9JalH67t5mnq65MshjduIkhpdBB6JWoiLU/fgi C3rw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.141.226 with SMTP id g76mr14857438wej.67.1337708817209; Tue, 22 May 2012 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.7.103 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 10:46:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <72B744D5-3D24-4A56-907C-2A8F6620877B@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:46:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jack Vogel To: Venkat Duvvuru Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LRO support for IPv6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:46:59 -0000 LRO is a huge win for 10G (as is TSO on the TX side), so odds are good its behind the drop, in any case you'll be able to test that soon :) Jack On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Venkat Duvvuru wrote: > Thanks for the response. > > I observed that there is a significant performance drop in case of IPv6 on > the "rx" side. > While I'm able to hit line rate ~9.5 Gbps on a 10gb NIC for IPv4..I could > only get ~6 Gbps on the "rx" front for IPv6...However "tx" for IPv6 is on > par with IPv4 hitting almost line rates. > > Could this be because of lack of LRO6?? > > Note: hwpmc profiling shows that most of the time is spent in the IPv6 > stack code > > /Venkat > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > >> >> On 22. May 2012, at 17:04 , Jack Vogel wrote: >> >> > Oh, that's right, distracted with other projects and I forgot, now we >> just need >> > to have an LRO that works with forwarding eh :) >> >> That's a 6 line bainaid commit afterwards, basically returning form the >> LRO queuing >> function in case forwarding is turned on for that address family; a >> proper solution >> for long term can than be done whenever we feel like it. The above we >> should have done >> years ago;) >> >> >> > You ROCK bz :) >> > >> > Jack >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb >> wrote: >> > >> > On 22. May 2012, at 16:50 , Jack Vogel wrote: >> > >> > > The LRO code as it stands right now is IPV4 specific, it would be >> nice to >> > > extend it, one of >> > > many improvements that may get done at some point. >> > >> > I am about to commit it to HEAD. Bear another few days with me; I know >> > I am running late but committing new code had less prio than some other >> > real life things currently. >> > >> > I'll also bring TSO6, etc... >> >> -- >> Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! >> It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! >> >> >