From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:04:03 -0400 Message-ID: <1181253843.4071.8.camel@localhost> References: <20070606.154041.08321169.davem@davemloft.net> <1181172946.4064.87.camel@localhost> <20070606.165602.118948582.davem@davemloft.net> <20070607090840.346f6a09@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.249]:9432 "EHLO ag-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965824AbXFGWEI (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:04:08 -0400 Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 35so525407aga for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:04:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070607090840.346f6a09@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-07-06 at 09:08 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > There could be bad packet reordering with this (like some SMP routers used to do). You can avoid re-ordering if you guarantee that "related" flows always end up on the same CPU via say tc filters i.e i dont think just a 5 tuple classification would be sufficient. cheers, jamal