From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [net-next 09/14] igb: Report L4 Rx hash via skb->l4_rxhash Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:23:10 -0800 Message-ID: <50F8337E.9030302@intel.com> References: <1358422519-20981-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1358422519-20981-10-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <1358432385.29723.6.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <50F82FCA.9090709@intel.com> <1358442889.29723.58.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Kirsher , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:49302 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751152Ab3AQRXL (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:23:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1358442889.29723.58.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/17/2013 09:14 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 09:07 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> Isn't the same true of TCP? I believe STT is intended to run over the >> TCP protocol, or am I getting ahead of myself since STT is not supported >> by the kernel? >> > > probably ;) > >>> Also, is IGB really using the ports in the rss for UDP packets ? >> >> Not by default. The default is to only hash on the IP header for UDP >> packets. >> >> As such the default would only be setting the l4_rxhash on TCP frames >> only. The user would have to specifically request L4 port hashing for >> UDP via the "ethtool -N" command for configuring rx-flow-hash. > > So you should rewrite this patch ? > > Or have I missed something ? I'm probably going to scrap it. No point in rewriting it. I has assumed that there were other uses for the l4_rxhash value. If all it is meant for is to indicate that the inner header of a tunnel was used to compute the hash then there isn't much point to adding support for this in igb/ixgbe since they don't support any inner header hashing. It might add value at some point to rename the l4_rxhash flag to something else though since it seems like there are now tunnels that are encapsulated inside of l4 headers and it is going to get confusing. Thanks, Alex