Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751131AbWCTJzL (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:55:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751079AbWCTJzL (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:55:11 -0500 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:49844 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750992AbWCTJzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:55:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:55:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20060320.015500.72136710.davem@davemloft.net> To: mst@mellanox.co.il Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org Subject: Re: TSO and IPoIB performance degradation From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060320090629.GA11352@mellanox.co.il> References: <4410C671.2050300@hp.com> <20060309.232301.77550306.davem@davemloft.net> <20060320090629.GA11352@mellanox.co.il> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2.53 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1561 Lines: 38 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:06:29 +0200 > Is it the case then that this requirement is less essential on > networks such as IP over InfiniBand, which are very low latency > and essencially lossless (with explicit congestion contifications > in hardware)? You can never assume any attribute of the network whatsoever. Even if initially the outgoing device is IPoIB, something in the middle, like a traffic classification or netfilter rule, could rewrite the packet and make it go somewhere else. This even applies to loopback packets, because packets can get rewritten and redirected even once they are passed in via netif_receive_skb(). > And as Matt Leininger's research appears to show, stretch ACKs > are good for performance in case of IP over InfiniBand. > > Given all this, would it make sense to add a per-netdevice (or per-neighbour) > flag to re-enable the trick for these net devices (as was done before > 314324121f9b94b2ca657a494cf2b9cb0e4a28cc)? > IP over InfiniBand driver would then simply set this flag. See above, this is not feasible. The path an SKB can take is opaque and unknown until the very last moment it is actually given to the device transmit function. People need to get the "special case this topology" ideas out of their heads. :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/