From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100427.100602.52191517.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4BD6E887.3000804@athenacr.com> <20100427.095108.68126984.davem@davemloft.net> <4BD71890.2050606@athenacr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: therbert@google.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rick.jones2@hp.com To: bmb@athenacr.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:46631 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752293Ab0D0RF4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:05:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BD71890.2050606@athenacr.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Brian Bloniarz Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:02:08 -0400 > Maybe I'm misunderstanding... won't it distribute the > packet handling load to multiple cores, but then all > those cores will contend trying to deliver those packets > to the single socket? > > I was assuming that this'd be a net loss over just doing > all the protocol handling on a single core. I haven't > done any benchmarks yet. Whether it's a new loss depends upon the application. Also, on the non-application side f.e. a router or firewall, this is exactly the behavior you want.