[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b43b6c9-502d-eabd-cbca-5a8e8b41e5f6@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:48:55 -0700
From: "Nambiar, Amritha" <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 5/7] net: Enable Tx queue selection based on
Rx queues
On 6/27/2018 3:47 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>> +static int get_xps_queue(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>> {
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_XPS
>>>> struct xps_dev_maps *dev_maps;
>>>> - struct xps_map *map;
>>>> + struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
>>>> int queue_index = -1;
>>>>
>>>> if (!static_key_false(&xps_needed))
>>>> return -1;
>>>>
>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>> - dev_maps = rcu_dereference(dev->xps_cpus_map);
>>>> + if (!static_key_false(&xps_rxqs_needed))
>>>> + goto get_cpus_map;
>>>> +
>>>> + dev_maps = rcu_dereference(dev->xps_rxqs_map);
>>>> if (dev_maps) {
>>>> - unsigned int tci = skb->sender_cpu - 1;
>>>> + int tci = sk_rx_queue_get(sk);
>>>
>>> What if the rx device differs from the tx device?
>>>
>> I think I have 3 options here:
>> 1. Cache the ifindex in sock_common which will introduce a new
>> additional field in sock_common.
>> 2. Use dev_get_by_napi_id to get the device id. This could be expensive,
>> if the rxqs_map is set, this will be done on every packet and involves
>> walking through the hashlist for napi_id lookup.
>
> The tx queue mapping is cached in the sk for connected sockets, but
> indeed this would be expensive for many workloads.
>
>> 3. Remove validating device id, similar to how it is in skb_tx_hash
>> where rx_queue recorded is used and if not, fall through to flow hash
>> calculation.
>> What do you think is suitable here?
>
> Alternatively, just accept the misprediction in this rare case. But do
> make the caveat explicit in the documentation.
>
Okay, I will add this in the documentation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists