# Re: \[PATCH RFC v3 0/5\] Support fraglist GRO/GSO

- From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner \<marcelo.leitner@gmail.com\>
- Date: 2019-09-18 16:58:24 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2019/09/11147902
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2019/09/11147879/t.md

```text
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:17:08PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:25 AM Steffen Klassert
> [ref] wrote:
> >
> > This patchset adds support to do GRO/GSO by chaining packets
> > of the same flow at the SKB frag_list pointer. This avoids
> > the overhead to merge payloads into one big packet, and
> > on the other end, if GSO is needed it avoids the overhead
> > of splitting the big packet back to the native form.
> >
> > Patch 1 Enables UDP GRO by default.
> >
> > Patch 2 adds a netdev feature flag to enable listifyed GRO,
> > this implements one of the configuration options discussed
> > at netconf 2019.
> >
> > Patch 3 adds a netdev software feature set that defaults to off
> > and assigns the new listifyed GRO feature flag to it.
> >
> > Patch 4 adds the core infrastructure to do fraglist GRO/GSO.
> >
> > Patch 5 enables UDP to use fraglist GRO/GSO if configured and no
> > GRO supported socket is found.
> 
> Very nice feature, Steffen. Aside from questions around performance,
> my only question is really how this relates to GSO_BY_FRAGS.

They do the exact same thing AFAICT: they GSO according to a
pre-formatted list of fragments/packets, and not to a specific size
(such as MSS).

> 
> More specifically, whether we can remove that in favor of using your
> new skb_segment_list. That would actually be a big first step in
> simplifying skb_segment back to something manageable.

The main issue (that I know) on obsoleting GSO_BY_FRAGS is that
dealing with frags instead of frag_list was considered easier to be
offloaded, if ever attempted.  So this would be a step back on that
aspect.  Other than this, it should be doable.
```