From: "Dave Täht" <dave@taht.net>
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Intel recommends against LRO in routing and bridging.
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:44:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <80a7042c-7028-b202-20c7-044a672bb9e6@taht.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALQXh-OH+_sYAY3XvJ48p_s2yHKzr-L5gvEWO3kGMRzKC=eDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 8/9/16 12:13 AM, Aaron Wood wrote:
> Just came across this at the top of the README for the ixgbe driver:
> (http://downloadmirror.intel.com/22919/eng/README.txt)
>
> WARNING: The ixgbe driver compiles by default with the LRO (Large Receive
> Offload) feature enabled. This option offers the lowest CPU utilization for
> receives, but is completely incompatible with *routing/ip forwarding* and
> *bridging*. If enabling ip forwarding or bridging is a requirement, it is
> necessary to disable LRO using compile time options as noted in the LRO
> section later in this document. The result of not disabling LRO when combined
> with ip forwarding or bridging can be low throughput or even a kernel panic.
I am not sure how true this remains. (?) We certainly have gone through
hell with TSO and GRO, but it was my hope that most of those issues were
fixed over the past 2 years, in the drivers, and htb/cake/hfsc, etc.
I don't think that the existing pie in linux head is handling 64k
superpackets[1] well. tbf is doing more of the right things here now,,
but wasn't till about a year back. Haven't tracked htb, and certainly
hfsc has shown some problems that I don't know are fixed or not (there
was a kernel bug filed on it some time back with stephen taking the lead
on it)
Cake's "peeling" mechanism for superpackets is also overly aggressive,
but we have not put much effort into tuning it yet. We have a variety of
potential solutions for that...
BQL tends to get a very big number for its estimator when superpackets
are in use, usually 4x what happens without superpackets turned on via
ethtool - but NOT having superpackets turned on can really hurt throughput.
The code we tested a while back on the bsd implementations (which
generally lack superpacket support) had trouble hitting fifo speeds at
high rates on the hardware under test (>400mbits).
[1] For want of a word, I'll use superpackets to refer to
TSO/GSO/GRO/LSO universally.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-10 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-08 22:13 Aaron Wood
2016-08-10 9:44 ` Dave Täht [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=80a7042c-7028-b202-20c7-044a672bb9e6@taht.net \
--to=dave@taht.net \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox