From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EAC021FFFE; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oigx81 with SMTP id x81so80671240oig.1; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3bc7qVoOFdOtjCp6kRFSDVxYlndgkYYjQmIKDM1HHpw=; b=B83GHUKg8XXIIVHbNSQbSobwQMzyaUQsntMuOcyuCYUFpng5jbszYhOAgZK1HWvzlm 8w0WJY/loTMvbCigLqq/p7hbMXGONjd/njB7Sk2xUDgnw8AMtpUjNWnJ96BUV7vxpTdp arJhhxnWtgIqwkNnx4h3IbTk720ZCBUwO+4VkCBsAx85/7XQLrZ/CLXSeCX0fNGAJtQy Zhut4JmA0Rv/xqED3WqTUcC+2qlzdEDipZY+q0mEIK7B+YhOUuAhbhe0IAHGMysq1+pX pabQPsKKwCQq++RiEBXm3fSjDZkUjdpHkLMNo822fKIf9qDX2NHfBWZ2vdo6J588dsiu w15Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.227.146 with SMTP id a140mr10373977oih.59.1435939269053; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.107.9 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <519B9F74-17B7-407D-9DAD-E5A0C610108D@gmail.com> References: <519B9F74-17B7-407D-9DAD-E5A0C610108D@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:01:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Cake] peeling harder with cake X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:01:38 -0000 On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Morton wro= te: > >> On 3 Jul, 2015, at 04:27, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> Also got more throughput for some reason. > > Is the NIC doing software GSO or does it have hardware support? If the f= ormer, it would suggest that software GSO is a universally bad idea and sho= uld be excised. If the latter, GSO should be disabled full stop for this h= ardware, so we can stop fannying about with peeling. :) It is software GSO, and yes, given the 4.0 results for forwarding on this platform, I would consider seriously cutting it down in size. (say, 2 MTU, max, down from 64k, or less - should give better cache behavior, too), That said, TSO/GSO/GRO is everywhere, and peeling, needed. Take the intel ethernet chips, for starters. But it would be best to experiment and benchmark, further. > > - Jonathan Morton > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast