From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Receive Packet Steering Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090615.020240.84385988.davem@davemloft.net> References: <65634d660905032103h614225dbg9911e290f5537fbf@mail.gmail.com> <20090610.012342.121254416.davem@davemloft.net> <65634d660906142252y6f7fc021l844b172995c10044@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: therbert@google.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:38895 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758276AbZFOJCh (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:02:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <65634d660906142252y6f7fc021l844b172995c10044@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:52:13 -0700 >> Just to keep this topic alive, I want to mention two things: >> >> 1) Just the other day support for the IXGBE "Flow Director" was >> added to net-next-2.6, it basically does flow steering in >> hardware. It remembers where the last TX for a flow was >> made, and steers RX traffic there. >> > > That's very cool. Is this able to preserve in order delivery? I don't know how the hardware works to this level of detail, sorry. But yet that's a very important issue. > What is the advantage over using a shared skbuff queue and making > doing a single IPI to schedule the backlog device on the remote CPU? No locking. Queue is only ever accessed by the local cpu.