From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: RFS seems to have incompatiblities with bridged vlans Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:59:10 -0700 Message-ID: <20100607145910.2458ac87@nehalam> References: <62C40338-045A-417E-9B90-E59A320E1343@dlh.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Lieven Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:34145 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752431Ab0FGV7Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:59:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <62C40338-045A-417E-9B90-E59A320E1343@dlh.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:36:11 +0200 Peter Lieven wrote: > Hi, > > i today tried out 2.6.32-rc2 and I see a lot of warning messages like this: > > Jun 7 22:33:15 172.21.55.20 kernel: [ 3012.575884] br141 received packet on queue 4, but number of RX queues is 1 > > The host is a SMP system with 8 cores, so I think there is expected to be one rx queue per CPU, but it seems > the bridge iface has only one. > The bridge interface has no queues. It doesn't queue any packets. The test in receive packet path is not appropriate in this case. Not sure what the right fix is. Pretending the bridge device has multiple queues (num_queues == NUM_CPUS) is a possibility but seems like overhead without real increase in parallelism.