From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C69C76196 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 02:21:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229717AbjDKCTW (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2023 22:19:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57448 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229656AbjDKCTT (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2023 22:19:19 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 260781738; Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:19:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=4/pq0kfRsZZRdtz49/VrpJy5R/A4i/UsofZV+uwwKy8=; b=Aowq6Z9l2xa7L35kAFEsWHwI0D 7TVFqAMffBofjnx1A48CSm1uMv9/PcGC6TaJWYf7lTJBbz7UQJY6Pag0HTvD/jgXB8wp1JKPD57hU gmtwJujaQq+liSXcqsFxA6rvtdT53zjXwHARfiXKyQrmFDyu06hOX011MTMIBW8ZDIR0=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1pm3b4-009xAV-WB; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 04:19:03 +0200 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 04:19:02 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Liang Li Cc: j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, Paolo Abeni , ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hangbin Liu , "Toppins, Jonathan" Subject: Re: [Question] About bonding offload Message-ID: <49e0cf25-331b-4d26-8d9a-66434e7a270e@lunn.ch> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:47:14AM +0800, Liang Li wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I'm a redhat network-qe and am testing bonding offload. e.g. gso,tso,gro,lro. > I got two questions during my testing. > > 1. The tcp performance has no difference when bonding GRO is on versus off. > When testing with bonding, I always get ~890 Mbits/sec bandwidth no > matter whether GRO is on. > When testing with a physical NIC instead of bonding on the same > machine, with GRO off, I get 464 Mbits/sec bandwidth, with GRO on, I > get 897 Mbits/sec bandwidth. > So looks like the GRO can't be turned off on bonding? > > I used iperf3 to test performance. > And I limited iperf3 process cpu usage during my testing to simulate a > cpu bottleneck. > Otherwise it's difficult to see bandwidth differences when offload is > on versus off. > > I reported a bz for this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183434 > > 2. Should bonding propagate offload configuration to slaves? > For now, only "ethtool -K bond0 lro off" can be propagated to slaves, > others can't be propagated to slaves, e.g. > ethtool -K bond0 tso on/off > ethtool -K bond0 gso on/off > ethtool -K bond0 gro on/off > ethtool -K bond0 lro on > All above configurations can't be propagated to bonding slaves. > > I reports a bz for this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183777 > > I am using the RHEL with kernel 4.18.0-481.el8.x86_64. Hi Liang Can you reproduce these issues with a modern kernel? net-next, or 6.3? The normal process for issues like this is to investigate with the latest kernel, and then backport fixes to old stable kernels. Andrew