[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55A5424B.2000803@hartkopp.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:09:31 +0200
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-can@...r.kernel.org" <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>,
Jonathon Reinhart <jonathon.reinhart@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Fighting out-of-order reception with RPS?
On 13.07.2015 06:57, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-07-12 at 21:15 +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
>> E.g. with
>>
>> skb_set_hash(skb, dev->ifindex, PKT_HASH_TYPE_L2);
>>
>> and
>>
>> echo f > /sys/class/net/can0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus
>>
>> I get properly ordered CAN frames - even with netif_rx() processed skbs. I
>> just want to have this stuff to be enabled by default for CAN interfaces to
>> kill the OOO frame issue.
>
> I doubt your skb_set_hash() makes any difference.
>
> RPS prefers a L4 hash anyway (skb_get_hash()), so flow dissection
> happens.
>
Please take a look into netif_rx_internal() in net/core/dev.c
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/net/core/dev.c?id=v4.2-rc1#n3486
with CONFIG_RPS netif_rx() takes care about the rps cpu and puts the skb into
the correct hash specific queue.
As we usually have several PF_CAN sockets which get CAN frames from a specific
CAN interface it makes no sense to enqueue packets into queues sorted by
receiving sockets or L4 hash (we don't have L4 addressing on CAN).
The skb_set_hash(skb, dev->ifindex, PKT_HASH_TYPE_L2) makes sure that the skbs
from a specific CAN netdev are always processed in the same queue.
When this is not wanted in 'fastpath netif_rx()' why is the CONFIG_RPS section
in there?
What is the advantage of implementing NAPI and a 'private sk_buf queue'
suggested by Tom in http://marc.info/?l=linux-can&m=143681458003381&w=2 to set
the hash as shown and enable rps_cpus?
The latter just looks just like a complexity boost to have a functionality
that already exists in netif_rx(). I just want to understand it.
Regards,
Oliver
--
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