Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   Liang Li <liali@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:47:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKVySpzU_23Z6Gu1N=z0DRm+sUQDjyiyUc18r4rJ_YQ+YELuFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Question] About bonding offload
To:     j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Hangbin Liu <haliu@redhat.com>,
        "Toppins, Jonathan" <jtoppins@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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.

BR,
Liang Li