From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow Steering Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:59:24 +0200 Message-ID: <1271743164.3845.128.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1271452358.16881.4486.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1271520633.16881.4754.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20100419.130905.210660275.davem@davemloft.net> <20100419.132318.192086187.davem@davemloft.net> <1271709121.3845.94.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , therbert@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Changli Gao Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:43662 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753343Ab0DTF7b (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:59:31 -0400 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so139527bwz.21 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:59:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le mardi 20 avril 2010 =C3=A0 07:38 +0800, Changli Gao a =C3=A9crit : > Does this problem has relationship with your patch? No. If the rxhash > isn't provided by hardware, we can get more throughput from you patch= , > and on the other side, we don't lose anything but potential more hash > collision. >=20 I am not sure what you call hash collision. There is no hash chain here= =2E This 32bit hash is a jhash one, and we only need 1 to 12 bits in it, I am pretty sure its OK.