On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Willem de Bruijn
>> <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Amritha Nambiar
>>>> <amritha.namb...@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds support to pick Tx queue based on the Rx queue map
>>>>> configuration set by the admin through the sysfs attribute
>>>>> for each Tx queue. If the user configuration for receive
>>>>> queue map does not apply, then the Tx queue selection falls back
>>>>> to CPU map based selection and finally to hashing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Amritha Nambiar <amritha.namb...@intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>
>>>>> +static int get_xps_queue(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XPS
>>>>> + enum xps_map_type i = XPS_MAP_RXQS;
>>>>> + struct xps_dev_maps *dev_maps;
>>>>> + struct sock *sk = skb->sk;
>>>>> + int queue_index = -1;
>>>>> + unsigned int tci = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (sk && sk->sk_rx_queue_mapping <= dev->real_num_rx_queues &&
>>>>> + dev->ifindex == sk->sk_rx_ifindex)
>>>>> + tci = sk->sk_rx_queue_mapping;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> + while (queue_index < 0 && i < __XPS_MAP_MAX) {
>>>>> + if (i == XPS_MAP_CPUS)
>>>>
>>>> This while loop typifies exactly why I don't think the XPS maps should
>>>> be an array.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> as a matter of fact, as enabling both cpu and rxqueue map at the same
>> time makes no sense, only one map is needed at any one time. The
>> only difference is in how it is indexed. It should probably not be possible
>> to configure both at the same time. Keeping a single map probably also
>> significantly simplifies patch 1/4.
>
> Willem,
>
> I think it might makes sense to have them both. Maybe one application
> is spin polling that needs this, where others might be happy with
> normal CPU mappings as default.
Some entries in the rx_queue table have queue_pair affinity
configured, the others return -1 to fall through to the cpu
affinity table?
I guess that implies flow steering to those special purpose
queues. I wonder whether this would be used this in practice.
I does make the code more complex by having to duplicate
the map lookup logic (mostly, patch 1/4).
