From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F4014CDB482 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865CD42150; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 865CD42150 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=osuosl.org; s=default; t=1697650633; bh=UWuAaMnUzfWA4zsi65Cif11tlOj2BLbT11HtvEwT/Mo=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Cc:From; b=di2yvLuOJvtXKacqvYwyjsrsyuLVkTFCynNttXifOutefBDR0/bWdAigwdqI/F76k Byo2MPwsIfgBRh0T1bmuxTJ2PZoEwzV0IAvmQ1W590J/SSzt4tFIXcYxdNEgI10kQw icEuRsujapOp0IW2h7MVtjca1xa083yS3JsaR2THC1POq5F4GXgeUdwvdKeVh+i8Vo 26JPyyQiJQMlwNQXHsLY9FHEndfOJ6Wgfg1ZsMdZflX182r+5FCYULuvevASe/zbAZ wyvf2+sPU0DOvRDPGBV7NO9qwn/oFxOuby2vjpBMLQegppwZhksEF8Ciqj0jSnzLOL mhC6sn+6tnxIQ== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bqkc97iS3hEk; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4324342153; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 4324342153 Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392ED1BF865 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BE6610F1 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 10BE6610F1 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtKPDHAlvCb3 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49C8560AC0 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 49C8560AC0 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D40FB823F3; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24585C433CA; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:37:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:37:03 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: takeru hayasaka Message-ID: <20231018103703.41fd4d9b@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20231012060115.107183-1-hayatake396@gmail.com> <20231016152343.1fc7c7be@kernel.org> <20231017164915.23757eed@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1697650625; bh=geOBo95O/K4ooFlTQc6NiW8YW2+mC1AuPcK2r9RbM60=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SXJfEeKWIEFL037wd9Kx1uRUp4vBF0hK+5pVBFk/LlLMQnkZgzbXWX/0iVZCFJSyP W7sTaRni2aOXaaP1bp9sZ/yR4HHmCvBAxxsNVcBx4OEsquhbG91/IikvmM+WTyW5l8 /+g/dDC6FOZ7erRdJLiMMIocyKhi2BnvQWip987zLwn9qZMEQhwPy4MCdbtuyr4/La dtzuMIcwKRLG628usEnptkqlz5W1Y7Va6KsX563a6krV4cKmg5Gymp2yD/TUv6hywL G2cEeyg745JJ5zm3X34im7j7hiII8pxpWtcf+A1YRvyaKEdwWh05DBow2Ke0mrWGT+ P3dyAc8SrFrFg== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=SXJfEeKW Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2] ethtool: ice: Support for RSS settings to GTP from ethtool X-BeenThere: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Wired Ethernet Linux Kernel Driver Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Willem de Bruijn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org, Jesse Brandeburg , Harald Welte , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, Tony Nguyen , Paolo Abeni , "David S. Miller" , Pablo Neira Ayuso Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org Sender: "Intel-wired-lan" On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:53:02 +0900 takeru hayasaka wrote: > For instance, there are PGWs that have the capability to separate the > termination of communication of 4G LTE users into Control and User > planes (C/U). > This is quite convenient from a scalability perspective. In fact, in > 5G UPF, the communication is explicitly only on the User plane > (Uplane). > > Therefore, services are expected to receive only GTPU traffic (e.g., > PGW-U, UPF) or only GTPC traffic (e.g., PGW-C). Hence, there arises a > necessity to use only GTPU. > > If we do not distinguish packets into Control/User (C/U) with options > like gtp4|6, I can conceive scenarios where performance tuning becomes > challenging. > For example, in cases where we want to process only the control > communication (GTPC) using Flow Director on specific CPUs, while > processing GTPU on the remaining cores. > In scenarios like IoT, where user communication is minimal but the > volume of devices is vast, the control traffic could substantially > increase. Thus, this might also be possible in reverse. > In short, this pertains to being mindful of CPU core affinity. > > If we were to propose again, setting aside considerations specific to > Intel, I believe, considering the users of ethtool, the smallest units > should be gtpu4|6 and gtpc4|6. > Regarding Extension Headers and such, I think it would be more > straightforward to handle them implicitly. > > What does everyone else think? Harald went further and questioned use of the same IP addresses for -U and -C traffic, but even within one endpoint aren't these running on a different port? Can someone reasonably use the same UDP port for both types of traffic? _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan