On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 9:53 AM Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 13:59 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > This is a *very rough* draft. Mainly for discussion while we also > > look at another partially overlapping approach [1]. > > I'm wondering how we go on from this ? I'm fine with either approaches.
Let me send the udp gro static_key patch. Then we don't need the enable udp on demand logic (patch 2/4). Your implementation of GRO is more fleshed out (patch 3/4) than my quick hack. My only request would be to use a separate UDP_GRO socket option instead of adding this to the existing UDP_SEGMENT. Sounds good? > Also, I'm interested in [try to] enable GRO/GSO batching in the > forwarding path, as you outlined initially in the GSO series > submission. That should cover Steffen use-case, too, right? Great. Indeed. Though there is some unresolved discussion on one large gso skb vs frag list. There has been various concerns around the use of frag lists for GSO in the past, and it does not match h/w offload. So I think the answer would be the first unless the second proves considerably faster (in which case it could also be added later as optimization).
