From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Enable RFS sk_rxhash tracking for ipv6 sockets
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:33:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20110406183318.GA6825@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <1302112465-6842-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
 <1302113253.3209.126.camel@edumazet-laptop>
 <20110406.111712.226782643.davem@davemloft.net>
 <1302114188.3209.128.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org,
	yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net, therbert@google.com
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:44328 "EHLO
	smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756188Ab1DFSd3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:33:29 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1302114188.3209.128.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:23:08PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 avril 2011 =E0 11:17 -0700, David Miller a =E9crit :
> > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:07:33 +0200
> >=20
> > > This is why we used on ipv4 :
> > >=20
> > > if (inet_sk(sk)->inet_daddr)
> > > 	sock_rps_save_rxhash(sk, skb->rxhash);
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Only arm RFS on UDP if socket is bound to a given remote peer.
> >=20
> > Agreed, Neil please make this change to your ipv6 code.
>=20
>=20
> BTW, do you guys know if NFS is using RFS right now (if TCP transport=
 is
> used) ?
>=20
Thats kind of a tricky question, are you referring to clients or server=
s?  Both
should be able to use RFS as Dave notes, but since sockets in NFS clien=
ts tend to be per
mount, rather than per application (as RFS nominally expects when doing=
 flow
steering), theres likely to be some conflict in where RFS decides to st=
eer
packets for that NFS socket  as different applications on different cpu=
s make
use of the same socket.
Neil

>=20
>=20
>=20