David Miller wrote:
quoted text
> From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:35:34 +0400
> 
>> This is because the target sends data in a zero-copy manner, so its
>> CPU is capable to deal with the load, but on the initiator there are
>> additional data copies from skb's to page cache and from page cache
>> to application.
> 
> If you've actually been reading at all what I've been saying in this
> thread you'll see that I've described a method to do this copy
> avoidance in a completely stateless manner.
> 
> You don't need to implement a TCP stack in the card in order to do
> data placement optimizations.  They can be done completely stateless.

Sure, I read what you wrote before writing (although, frankly, didn't 
get the idea). But I don't think that overall it would be as efficient 
as full hardware offload. See my reply to Jeff Garzik about that.

quoted text
> Also, large portions of the cpu overhead are transactional costs,
> which are significantly reduced by existing technologies such as
> LRO.

The test used Myricom Myri-10G cards (myri10ge driver), which support 
LRO. And from ethtool -S output I conclude it was enabled. Just in case, 
I attached it, so you can recheck me.

Thus, apparently, LRO doesn't make a fundamental difference. Maybe this 
particular implementation isn't too efficient, I don't know. I don't 
have enough information for that.

Vlad