From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Ronak Doshi <doshir@vmware.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Pv-drivers <Pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Guolin Yang <gyang@vmware.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vmxnet3: use gro callback when UPT is enabled
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:51:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e2ae42b-4f10-048e-4828-5cb6dd8558f5@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0389636C-F179-48E1-89D2-48DE0B34FD30@vmware.com>
On 2023/3/15 5:09, Ronak Doshi wrote:
>
> > On 3/9/23, 5:02 PM, "Yunsheng Lin" <linyunsheng@huawei.com <mailto:linyunsheng@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>> So it is a run time thing? What happens if some LRO'ed packet is put in the rx queue,
>> and the the vnic switches the mode to UPT, is it ok for those LRO'ed packets to go through
>> the software GSO processing?
> Yes, it should be fine.
>
>> If yes, why not just call napi_gro_receive() for LRO case too?
>>
> We had done perf measurements in the past and it turned out this results in perf penalty.
> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/1308947605-4300-1-git-send-email-jesse@nicira.com/
>
> In fact, internally recently we did some perf measurements on RHEL 9.0, and it still showed some penalty.
Does clearing the NETIF_F_GRO for netdev->features bring back the performance?
If no, maybe there is something need investigating.
>
>> Looking closer, it seems vnic is implementing hw GRO from driver' view, as the driver is
>> setting skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_* accordingly:
>>
>>
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Fdrivers%2Fnet%2Fvmxnet3%2Fvmxnet3_drv.c%23L1665&data=05%7C01%7Cdoshir%40vmware.com%7C68e4b3dbd7d948887f0808db21031e2c%>7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C638140069565449054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LAw6oCG2MgYH4TPQAnWUy25E2u%2FDMSW2aSJ7OY2%2FOu8%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.bootlin.com%2Flinux%2Flatest%2Fsource%2Fdrivers%2Fnet%2Fvmxnet3%2Fvmxnet3_drv.c%23L1665&data=05%7C01%7Cdoshir%40vmware.com%7C68e4b3dbd7d948887f0808db21031e2c%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C638140069565449054%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LAw6oCG2MgYH4TPQAnWUy25E2u%2FDMSW2aSJ7OY2%2FOu8%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> In that case, you may call napi_gro_receive() for those GRO'ed skb too, see:
>>
>
> I see. Seems this got added recently. This will need re-evaluation by the team based on ToT Linux.
> But this can be done in near future and as this might take time, for now this patch should be applied as
> UPT patches are already up-streamed.
Checking rq->shared->updateRxProd in the driver to decide if gro is allow does not seems right to
me, as the netstack has used the NETIF_F_GRO checking in netif_elide_gro().
Does clearing NETIF_F_GRO for netdev->features during the driver init process works for your
case?
As netdev->hw_features is for the driver to advertise the hw's capability, and the driver
can enable/disable specific capability by setting netdev->features during the driver init
process, and user can get to enable/disable specific capability using ethtool later if user
need to.
>
> Thanks,
> Ronak
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-15 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-08 22:25 Ronak Doshi
2023-03-09 0:34 ` Yunsheng Lin
2023-03-09 22:50 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-10 1:02 ` Yunsheng Lin
2023-03-14 21:09 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-15 1:51 ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
2023-03-15 2:27 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-15 3:04 ` Yunsheng Lin
2023-03-15 23:44 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-16 1:47 ` Yunsheng Lin
2023-03-16 4:03 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-16 4:13 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-03-16 5:21 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-16 20:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-03-17 2:37 ` Yunsheng Lin
2023-03-17 20:27 ` Ronak Doshi
2023-03-18 2:43 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-03-23 5:43 Ronak Doshi
2023-03-23 15:48 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2e2ae42b-4f10-048e-4828-5cb6dd8558f5@huawei.com \
--to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=Pv-drivers@vmware.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=doshir@vmware.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gyang@vmware.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®