Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-09 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 10:39 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 10:22 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > One thought that just occurred to me based on this would be to > > configure inner headers on the way up, and to configure the outer > > headers on the way down. Then that way

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-09 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 10:22 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > One thought that just occurred to me based on this would be to > configure inner headers on the way up, and to configure the outer > headers on the way down. Then that way we could go through and be > guaranteed that the inner headers re

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-09 Thread Alexander Duyck
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 09:08 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > >> So we probably need to make sure the network header is properly set for >> the segments. Then skb_reset_mac_len(nskb); would work as intended. >> >> Since skb_segment() is called fr

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-08 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 18:19:59 -0700 > From: Eric Dumazet > > When using ifb+netem on ingress on SIT/IPIP/GRE traffic, > GRO packets are not properly processed. > > Segmentation should not be forced, since ifb is already adding > quite a performance hit. > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-08 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 09:08 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > So we probably need to make sure the network header is properly set for > the segments. Then skb_reset_mac_len(nskb); would work as intended. > > Since skb_segment() is called from the deepest point in GSO path, > it always see the inner n

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-08 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Sat, 2016-05-07 at 22:41 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 18:19 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > From: Eric Dumazet > > > > When using ifb+netem on ingress on SIT/IPIP/GRE traffic, > > GRO packets are not properly processed. > > > > Segmentation should not be forced, since ifb

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-07 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 18:19 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > > When using ifb+netem on ingress on SIT/IPIP/GRE traffic, > GRO packets are not properly processed. > > Segmentation should not be forced, since ifb is already adding > quite a performance hit. > > Signed-off-by: Eri

[PATCH v2 net-next] ifb: support more features

2016-05-06 Thread Eric Dumazet
From: Eric Dumazet When using ifb+netem on ingress on SIT/IPIP/GRE traffic, GRO packets are not properly processed. Segmentation should not be forced, since ifb is already adding quite a performance hit. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet --- drivers/net/ifb.c |3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertion