On 03/17/15 at 12:34P, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 17 March 2015 at 11:33, Jason Wolfe <nitrobo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <h...@selasky.org> > > wrote: > >> On 03/16/15 10:37, Vitalii Duk wrote: > >>> > >>> I've changed use_flowid to 0 and it helped! But isn't it setting > >>> significant? In a description it says "Shift flowid bits to prevent > >>> multiqueue collisions". > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Maybe your ethernet hardware is not properly setting the m_flowid ... > >> > >> --HPS > >> > > > > Flip use_flowid back to 1 and try setting > > net.link.lagg.default_flowid_shift / net.link.lagg.X.flowid_shift to 0 > > as Hiren suggested. r260179 added this shift, which has caused us > > balancing issues with the i350/igb. > > > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=260179 > > > > Based on Adrian's comment about igb/ixgbe not setting the 'full > > flowid' under normal conditions, does that mean this shift should be 0 > > by default to ensure we don't break balancing for devices that only > > set the CPU/MSIX queue? > > Or we can just see if there's anything wrong with putting the full 32 > bit RSS flowid in received packets that have them.
It'd be nice to have but for now I am proposing following to fix a known broken case because of an optimization: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2098 Cheers, Hiren
pgpJJNjYcaj59.pgp
Description: PGP signature
