[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e471519b-b253-4121-9eec-f7f05948c258@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 14:48:28 +0200
From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
To: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: mkubecek@...e.cz, andrew@...n.ch, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, corbet@....net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, edumazet@...gle.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
horms@...nel.org, vladimir.oltean@....com,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v4 1/6] net: ethtool: allow
symmetric-xor RSS hash for any flow type
On 29/10/2023 14:42, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>
>
> On 2023-10-29 06:25, Gal Pressman wrote:
>> On 21/10/2023 3:00, Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2023-10-20 17:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:14:11 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>>>>> I replied to that here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/afb4a06f-cfba-47ba-adb3-09bea7cb5f00@intel.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> I am kind of confused now so please bear with me. ethtool either sends
>>>>> "ethtool_rxfh" or "ethtool_rxnfc". AFAIK "ethtool_rxfh" is the
>>>>> interface
>>>>> for "ethtool -X" which is used to set the RSS algorithm. But we
>>>>> kind of
>>>>> agreed to go with "ethtool -U|-N" for symmetric-xor, and that uses
>>>>> "ethtool_rxnfc" (as implemented in this series).
>>>>
>>>> I have no strong preference. Sounds like Alex prefers to keep it closer
>>>> to algo, which is "ethtool_rxfh".
>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean use "ethtool_rxfh" instead of "ethtool_rxnfc"? how would
>>>>> that work on the ethtool user interface?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you're asking of us. If you find the code to
>>>> confusing
>>>> maybe someone at Intel can help you :|
>>>
>>> The code is straightforward. I am confused by the requirements: don't
>>> add a new algorithm but use "ethtool_rxfh".
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can get more help, may be I am missing something.
>>>
>>
>> What was the decision here?
>> Is this going to be exposed through ethtool -N or -X?
>
> I am working on a new version that uses "ethtool_rxfh" to set the
> symmetric-xor. The user will set per-device via:
>
> ethtool -X eth0 hfunc toeplitz symmetric-xor
>
> then specify the per-flow type RSS fields as usual:
>
> ethtool -N|-U eth0 rx-flow-hash <flow_type> s|d|f|n
>
> The downside is that all flow-types will have to be either symmetric or
> asymmetric.
Why are we making the interface less flexible than it can be with -N?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists