From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.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 13:30:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZG31Plb6/UF3XKd3@corigine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230523142005.3c5cc655@kernel.org>
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 02:20:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:49:06 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > Previously, since the introduction of the driver, RSS hashing
> > > was only performed on the source and destination IP addresses
> > > of UDP packets thereby limiting UDP traffic to a single queue
> > > for multiple connections on the same IP address. The transport
> > > layer is now included in RSS hashing for UDP traffic, which
> > > was not previously the case. The reason behind the previous
> > > limitation is unclear - either a historic limitation of the
> > > NFP device, or an oversight.
> >
> > FTR including the transport header in RSS hash for UDP will damage
> > fragmented traffic, but whoever is relaying on fragments nowadays
> > should have already at least a dedicated setup.
>
> Yup, that's the exact reason it was disabled by default, FWIW.
>
> The Microsoft spec is not crystal clear on how to handles this:
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/network/rss-hashing-types#ndis_hash_ipv4
> There is a note saying:
>
> If a NIC receives a packet that has both IP and TCP headers,
> NDIS_HASH_TCP_IPV4 should not always be used. In the case of a
> fragmented IP packet, NDIS_HASH_IPV4 must be used. This includes
> the first fragment which contains both IP and TCP headers.
>
> While NDIS_HASH_UDP_IPV4 makes no such distinction and talks only about
> "presence" of the header.
>
> Maybe we should document that device is expected not to use the UDP
> header if MF is set?
Yes, maybe.
Could you suggest where such documentation should go?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-24 11:30 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 [this message]
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
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=ZG31Plb6/UF3XKd3@corigine.com \
--to=simon.horman@corigine.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=louis.peens@corigine.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@corigine.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=willemb@google.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).