From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>,
Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, oss-drivers@corigine.com,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] nfp: add L4 RSS hashing on UDP traffic
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 09:28:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230524092839.2688a15d@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2ecb3189855ceb4f7399271bf99af5a27926e59c.camel@redhat.com>
On Wed, 24 May 2023 18:14:55 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Ugh, that's what I thought. I swear I searched it for "fragment"
> > yesterday and the search came up empty. I blame google docs :|
> >
> > We should probably still document the recommendation that if the NIC
> > does not comply and hashes on ports with MF set - it should disable
> > UDP hashing by default (in kernel docs).
>
> FTR, the above schema could still move the same flow on different
> queues - if some datagrams in the given flow are fragmented and some
> are not.
Ah, you're right.
> Out of sheer ignorance I really don't know if/how many NICs implement
> RSS hashing with the above schema (using different data according to
> the IP header fragments related fields). I'm guessing some (most?) use
> a simpler schema (always L4 if available or never L4).
>
> I *think* we could as well suggest always using L4 for UDP. If users
> care about fragments they will have to explicitly deal with them
> anyway.
Makes sense. QUIC changed the math on how likely UDP fragmentation is.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-24 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-22 14:13 [PATCH net-next] nfp: add L4 RSS hashing on UDP traffic Louis Peens
2023-05-23 10:49 ` Paolo Abeni
2023-05-23 21:20 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-24 11:30 ` Simon Horman
2023-05-24 15:22 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-24 15:33 ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-05-24 15:38 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-24 16:14 ` Paolo Abeni
2023-05-24 16:28 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2023-05-24 3:40 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230524092839.2688a15d@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=louis.peens@corigine.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@corigine.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=simon.horman@corigine.com \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).