[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1446144211.6254.2.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:43:31 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Nørlund <pch@...bogen.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv4: use l4 hash for locally generated
multipath flows
On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 17:52 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 08:28 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 16:00 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >
> > > This patch do not add dissection code: it use the information provided
> > > by the available flowi4 structure. Moreover the skb is not available on
> > > the calling site (in __ip_route_output_key_hash) and pushing it all the
> > > way will require a lot of intrusive changes. Do you think it's the
> > > better option ?
> >
> > If skb is provided, then we could use its information.
>
> I see your point, but providing an skb to __ip_route_output_key_hash()
> is not very viable: it has a lot of indirect callers which are
> problematic, i.e.:
>
> __ip_route_output_key()
> ip_route_output_flow()
> inet_csk_route_req()
> tcp_v4_send_synack() <- skb available here, but created using dst
> information.
>
I never said it was trivial.
I said : "If skb is provided, then we can use its l4hash"
If not, then sure, a flow-based hash fallback is better than nothing.
--
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