[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <412e6f7f1003242212t242a30e0k635bdfb861c324e4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:12:57 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RPS: support 802.1q and pppoe session
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> While this might sounds a good idea, you really should split this in two
> parts.
>
> By the way, why not handling IPIP too ?
I'm not sure if it is a good idea to support VLAN and PPPOE, and
actually David don't like it. :(
>
> Because I believe 802.1q part has no added value for instance, since
> packet handled by CPUX will be decoded and passed to VLAN device, having
> a chance to be fully taken by RPS, since we go back to netif_rx().
>
> Probably same thing for IPIP / PPPOE can be discussed.
It is useful when Linux is run as a bridge.
>
> I agree we might need a flag or something to reset rxhash to 0 somewhere
> (probably in non accelerated vlan rx handling) to force second
> get_rps_cpu() invocation to recompute it. This small correction has no
> cost if put outside of get_rps_cpus().
>
> If get_rps_cpus() is too complex, it might become too slow for typical
> use. We should find smart ways to solve your performance problem if they
> ever exist.
>
It means that more than one IPI will be sent for just a single
packets, I don't think the cost is acceptable.
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists