Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:13:33 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net: mv643xx_eth: Add GRO support |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:40:23PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > This patch adds GRO support to mv643xx_eth by making it invoke > napi_gro_receive instead of netif_receive_skb. > > Signed-off-by: Soeren Moch <smoch@web.de> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> > --- > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> > Cc: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org> > Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> > Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> > Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> > Cc: Dale Farnsworth <dale@farnsworth.org> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c > index 305038f..c850d04 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mv643xx_eth.c > @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ static int rxq_process(struct rx_queue *rxq, int budget) > lro_receive_skb(&rxq->lro_mgr, skb, (void *)cmd_sts); > lro_flush_needed = 1; > } else > - netif_receive_skb(skb); > + napi_gro_receive(&mp->napi, skb); > > continue;
I remember having experimented with this on 3.6 a few months ago with this driver and finally switching back to something like this instead which showed better performance on my tests :
if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY) napi_gro_receive(napi, skb); else netif_receive_skb(skb);
Unfortunately I don't have more details as my commit message was rather short due to this resulting from experimentation. Did you verify that you did not lose any performance in various workloads ? I was playing with bridges at this time, it's possible that I got better performance on bridging with netif_receive_skb() than with napi_gro_receive().
Regards, Willy
| |