[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305666781.8149.953.camel@tardy>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:13:01 -0700
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: small RPS cache for fragments?
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 17:10 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 23:00:50 +0200
>
> > Le mardi 17 mai 2011 à 16:49 -0400, David Miller a écrit :
> >> From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:02:25 -0700
> >>
> >> > I like it! And this sounds like the sort of algorithm that NICs might
> >> > be able to implement to solve the UDP/RSS unpleasantness, so even
> >> > better.
> >>
> >> Actually, I think it won't work. Even Linux emits fragments last to
> >> first, so we won't see the UDP header until the last packet where it's
> >> no longer useful.
> >>
> >> Back to the drawing board. :-/
> >
> > Well, we could just use the iph->id in the rxhash computation for frags.
> >
> > At least all frags of a given datagram should be reassembled on same
> > cpu, so we get RPS (but not RFS)
>
> That's true, but one could also argue that in the existing code at least
> one of the packets (the one with the UDP header) would make it to the
> proper flow cpu.
>
> That could be as much as half of the packets.
>
> So I don't yet see it as a clear win.
How heinous would it be to do post-reassembly RFS?
rick
--
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