[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E8819FD.7090107@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 09:59:57 +0200
From: Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.co.il>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, <oren@...lanox.co.il>,
<liranl@...lanox.co.il>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Diego Crupnicoff <Diego@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: RFS issue: no HW filter for paused stream
Yes - checked it and it works.
- Amir
On 09/28/2011 02:42 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 09:11 +0300, Amir Vadai wrote:
>> Looks good.
>> and now the code is much clearer
> Does that mean that this change *works* for you?
>
> Ben.
>
> [...]
>>> But that means we never move the flow to a new CPU in the non-
>>> accelerated case. So maybe the proper change would be:
>>>
>>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>> @@ -2652,10 +2652,7 @@ static struct rps_dev_flow *
>>> set_rps_cpu(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> struct rps_dev_flow *rflow, u16 next_cpu)
>>> {
>>> - u16 tcpu;
>>> -
>>> - tcpu = rflow->cpu = next_cpu;
>>> - if (tcpu != RPS_NO_CPU) {
>>> + if (next_cpu != RPS_NO_CPU) {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RFS_ACCEL
>>> struct netdev_rx_queue *rxqueue;
>>> struct rps_dev_flow_table *flow_table;
>>> @@ -2683,16 +2680,16 @@ set_rps_cpu(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> goto out;
>>> old_rflow = rflow;
>>> rflow =&flow_table->flows[flow_id];
>>> - rflow->cpu = next_cpu;
>>> rflow->filter = rc;
>>> if (old_rflow->filter == rflow->filter)
>>> old_rflow->filter = RPS_NO_FILTER;
>>> out:
>>> #endif
>>> rflow->last_qtail =
>>> - per_cpu(softnet_data, tcpu).input_queue_head;
>>> + per_cpu(softnet_data, next_cpu).input_queue_head;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + rflow->cpu = next_cpu;
>>> return rflow;
>>> }
>>>
>>> --- END ---
>>>
--
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