Currently a bridge device turns off TSO feature if no bridge ports
support it. We can always enable it, since packets can be segmented on
ports by software as well as on the bridge device.
This will reduce the number of packets processed in the bridge.
Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <redacted>
---
v2: Use an existing helper function.
net/bridge/br_if.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Currently a bridge device turns off TSO feature if no bridge ports
support it. We can always enable it, since packets can be segmented on
ports by software as well as on the bridge device.
This will reduce the number of packets processed in the bridge.
Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <redacted>
---
v2: Use an existing helper function.
net/bridge/br_if.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
*br,
features = netdev_increment_features(features,
p->dev->features, mask);
}
+ features = netdev_add_tso_features(features, mask);
Just a doubt. Are we inducing latency if source has traffic at very low rate.
I mean by default do we need it?
return features;
}
--
1.8.1.2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Currently a bridge device turns off TSO feature if no bridge ports
support it. We can always enable it, since packets can be segmented on
ports by software as well as on the bridge device.
This will reduce the number of packets processed in the bridge.
Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <redacted>
---
v2: Use an existing helper function.
net/bridge/br_if.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
*br,
features = netdev_increment_features(features,
p->dev->features, mask);
}
+ features = netdev_add_tso_features(features, mask);
Just a doubt. Are we inducing latency if source has traffic at very low rate.
I mean by default do we need it?
Is your concern tcp_tso_should_defer() in tcp_write_xmit()?
If so, since TSO packet is created by GSO even without this patch, this
should not increase latency there.
This patch just delays the point of software segmentation from the
bridge device to its port.
Thanks,
Toshiaki Makita
Currently a bridge device turns off TSO feature if no bridge ports
support it. We can always enable it, since packets can be segmented on
ports by software as well as on the bridge device.
This will reduce the number of packets processed in the bridge.
Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <redacted>
---
v2: Use an existing helper function.
net/bridge/br_if.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
net_bridge
*br,
features = netdev_increment_features(features,
p->dev->features, mask);
}
+ features = netdev_add_tso_features(features, mask);
Just a doubt. Are we inducing latency if source has traffic at very low
rate.
I mean by default do we need it?
Is your concern tcp_tso_should_defer() in tcp_write_xmit()?
yes.
If so, since TSO packet is created by GSO even without this patch, this
should not increase latency there.
This patch just delays the point of software segmentation from the
bridge device to its port.
I think now I got your point.
Thanks,
Pankaj
Thanks,
Toshiaki Makita
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Currently a bridge device turns off TSO feature if no bridge ports
support it. We can always enable it, since packets can be segmented on
ports by software as well as on the bridge device.
This will reduce the number of packets processed in the bridge.
Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <redacted>
---
v2: Use an existing helper function.