On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:19:11PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On 09/10/2012 02:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> A final addition: what you suggest above would be > >> "TX follows RX", right? > > BTW, yes. But it's a weird way to express what the nic is doing. It explains what the system is doing. TX is done by driver, RX by nic. We document both driver and device in the spec so I thought it's fine. any suggestions wellcome. > >> It is in anticipation of something like that, that I made > >> steering programming so generic. > > >> I think TX follows RX is more immediately useful for reasons above > >> but we can add both to spec and let drivers and devices > >> decide what they want to support. > > You mean "RX follows TX"? ie. accelerated RFS. I agree. Yes that's what I meant. Thanks for the correction. > Perhaps Tom can explain how we avoid out-of-order receive for the > accelerated RFS case? It's not clear to me, but we need to be able to > do that for virtio-net if it implements accelerated RFS. Basically this has tx vq per cpu and relies on scheduler not bouncing threads between cpus too aggressively. Appears to be what ixgbe does. > > AFAIK, ixgbe does "rx follows tx". The only differences between ixgbe > > and virtio-net is that ixgbe driver programs the flow director during > > packet transmission but we suggest to do it silently in the device for > > simplicity. > > Implying the receive queue by xmit will be slightly laggy. Don't know > if that's a problem. > > Cheers, > Rusty. Doesn't seem to be a problem in Jason's testing so far. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
