-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 341
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
UDP GSO support #135
Open
nyrahul
wants to merge
6
commits into
litespeedtech:master
Choose a base branch
from
nyrahul:gso
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
UDP GSO support #135
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
203652c
fix for BORINGSSL_LIB and BORINGSSL_INCLUDE paths with cmake
nyrahul 8bfd9a0
fix boringssl lib search with different build dir
nyrahul 180237f
Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic into…
nyrahul d25c3cb
UDP GSO support
nyrahul 7193096
enabling GSO only for linux
nyrahul 6b5bc6d
merged to upstream
nyrahul File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When there are two connections (or more) that send packets, the lsquic engine interleaves the packets. In that scenario, you'd end up with sending single packets most of the time. I believe a better approach is to perform the check whether all the specs match in
sport_packets_out()
. If they don't match, use non-GSO sending method.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, I was aware that two connections packets could be interleaved in the same call.
The
match_spec(&newspec, &specs[i])
takes care of identifying it. If the spec differs then the batching is stopped and whatever batch is currently available is sent. Does that make sense?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it makes sense. But I wanted to emphasize that when there is more than one connection, one is likely to end up with specs never matching and thus, given N packets to send, we'll send N batches of one. That's why I suggested to perform the check earlier and use the result to pick the sending function: GSO or non-GSO.