From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eilon Greenstein" Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:31:00 +0300 Message-ID: <1272393060.30392.2.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> References: <4BD5F553.6020006@hp.com> <20100426.134051.232750473.davem@davemloft.net> <4BD5FC16.4070402@hp.com> <20100426.135305.15235166.davem@davemloft.net> <4BD601C3.5030108@hp.com> Reply-To: eilong@broadcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: "Rick Jones" , "David Miller" , "therbert@google.com" , "eric.dumazet@gmail.com" Return-path: Received: from mms1.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.17]:4111 "EHLO mms1.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689Ab0D0SbL (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:31:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BD601C3.5030108@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 14:12 -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > David Miller wrote: > > From: Rick Jones > > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:48:22 -0700 > > > >>Do not confuse explanation with endorsement. > > > > Ok, fair enough. > > > > But I don't see even the "other perspective" argument being even > > valid. Big shops still use UDP and it has to scale. > > Preface - I too think it is massively stupid to ignore anything but TCP/IPv4, > and unwise to ignore IPv6 and so on, but there is a very real reason why one of > my email signatures reads: > > "The road to hell is paved with business decisions" > > > Or have they made multicast magically start working with TCP so > > they can us it to do trades on the NASDAQ? > > No. How many NIC chips can NASDAQ be expected to move? 0.1%? or even 1% of the > NIC chip market? > > How many more NIC chips are in places where someone says "You sold me on > iSCSI/FCoE/whatnot, why can't I get 'link-rate' to/from iSCSI storage/whatnot?!" > > The NIC designer is there with his finance guys breathing down his neck shouting > "ROI Uber Alles!" and "Your budget is only this many monetary units!" The > system designers at the system vendors are hearing the same things from their > own finance guys, have certain schedules, which then has them going to the NIC > firms, who want to sell chips to the system guys "You have to be ready to ship > by this date and your chip has to sell for no more than this." > > Lather, rinse, repeat a few times and you get compromises on top of compromises. > > Sometimes I think it is a wonder any of it actually works at all... > > rick jones Though the thread is going in a different direction now, I just wanted to clarify two things: - yes, the 57710 and 57711 only handle the IP (src+dst) for UDP toeplitz hash. We all agree that it is much better to address the UDP ports as well, but I think Rick Jones explained the process very well - thank you Rick. Just to add one more (lame) excuse: the HW was designed before new NAPI was introduced and it complies with the requirements from Redmond - the next generation (57712) which we already sample does (finally) support it. We are working on a patch series to enhance the bnx2x to support this device now. Eilon