[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230524082216.1e1fed93@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 08:22:16 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@...igine.com, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] nfp: add L4 RSS hashing on UDP traffic
On Wed, 24 May 2023 13:30:06 +0200 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 02:20:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Yup, that's the exact reason it was disabled by default, FWIW.
> >
> > The Microsoft spec is not crystal clear on how to handles this:
> > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/network/rss-hashing-types#ndis_hash_ipv4
> > There is a note saying:
> >
> > If a NIC receives a packet that has both IP and TCP headers,
> > NDIS_HASH_TCP_IPV4 should not always be used. In the case of a
> > fragmented IP packet, NDIS_HASH_IPV4 must be used. This includes
> > the first fragment which contains both IP and TCP headers.
> >
> > While NDIS_HASH_UDP_IPV4 makes no such distinction and talks only about
> > "presence" of the header.
> >
> > Maybe we should document that device is expected not to use the UDP
> > header if MF is set?
>
> Yes, maybe.
>
> Could you suggest where such documentation should go?
That's the hardest question, perhaps :)
Documentation/networking/scaling.rst and/or OCP NIC spec:
https://ocp-all.groups.io/g/OCP-Networking/topic/nic_software_core_offloads/98930671?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,98930671,previd%3D1684255676674808204,nextid%3D1676673801962532335&previd=1684255676674808204&nextid=1676673801962532335
Powered by blists - more mailing lists