On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:35:51PM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/31/17, 3:13 AM, "Yuanhan Liu" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:28:01PM +0000, Darrell Ball wrote:
>     >     
>     >     [Finn]
>     >     
>     >     I think we should not further intermix the rxqs distributed to 
> different pmd's, other than initially configured, when setting up hw-offload. 
> If we make a round-robin distribution of the rxqs, a different pmd will most 
> likely receive the hw-offloaded packets - not the same pmd that ran the 
> slow-path originally creating the flow.
>     >     
>     >     It is usual to optimize caches etc. per pmd and that would not work 
> then. Maybe the further processing of the hw-offloaded packets does not need 
> these optimizations at the moment, however, IMHO I think we would be better 
> off using the first proposal above (use the same rxq as the one creating the 
> flow).
>     > 
>     > [Darrell] Several ideas have some validity.
>     >                  However, this sounds reasonable and simple and we 
> could revisit as needed.
>     >                  What do you think Yuanhan ?
>     
>     Just want to make sure we are on the same page: do you mean the original
>     solution/workaround I mentioned in the cover letter: record the rxq at
>     recv and pass it down to flow creation?
>     
>     If so, I'm okay with it.
> 
> [Darrell]
> This is the relevant part from the cover letter:
> 
> “One possible
>  solution is to record the rxq and pass it down to the flow creation
>  stage. It would be much better, but it's still far away from being perfect.
>  Because it might have changed the steering rules stealthily, which may
>  break the default RSS setup by OVS-DPDK.”
> 
> This is a reasonable first cut.
> However, the flows installed are masked flows but the associated packets 
> would ‘normally’ end up on multiple
> PMDs due to RSS, right ?

Why it's "multiple PMDs due to RSS"? Isn't RSS for distributing packets
to multiple RX queues inside the NIC?

        --yliu

> But for HWOL, we specify ‘the queue’ to be the one we receive the first 
> packet from. 
> This is what I was getting at b4. So, future workarounds would be 
> ‘auto-splitting flows’ across queues, user specified flow->queue
> associations etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>       --yliu
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to