[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230524092839.2688a15d@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 09:28:39 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Simon Horman
<simon.horman@...igine.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 18:14:55 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Ugh, that's what I thought. I swear I searched it for "fragment"
> > yesterday and the search came up empty. I blame google docs :|
> >
> > We should probably still document the recommendation that if the NIC
> > does not comply and hashes on ports with MF set - it should disable
> > UDP hashing by default (in kernel docs).
>
> FTR, the above schema could still move the same flow on different
> queues - if some datagrams in the given flow are fragmented and some
> are not.
Ah, you're right.
> Out of sheer ignorance I really don't know if/how many NICs implement
> RSS hashing with the above schema (using different data according to
> the IP header fragments related fields). I'm guessing some (most?) use
> a simpler schema (always L4 if available or never L4).
>
> I *think* we could as well suggest always using L4 for UDP. If users
> care about fragments they will have to explicitly deal with them
> anyway.
Makes sense. QUIC changed the math on how likely UDP fragmentation is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists