From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 12:53:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20100501105304.GA9434@gargoyle.fritz.box> References: <20100430.115715.216750975.davem@davemloft.net> <20100430210131.GA2833@gargoyle.fritz.box> <20100430.153038.62351857.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, shemminger@vyatta.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:48734 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751831Ab0EAKue (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2010 06:50:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100430.153038.62351857.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > And we don't want it to, because the decision mechanisms for steering > that we using now are starting to get into the stateful territory and > that's verbotton for NIC offload as far as we're concerned. Huh? I thought full TCP offload was forbidden?[1] Statefull as in NIC (or someone else like netfilter) tracking flows is quite common and very far from full offload. AFAIK it doesn't have near all the problems full offload has. -Andi [1] although it seems to leak in more and more through the RDMA backdoor.