From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:02:33 +0800 > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 09:51:24AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > > How so? If the TX hash is well distributed, which it should be, > > it is at least going to approximate the distribution provided by > > the RX hash. > > This is a matter of probabilities :) In general, if the TX hash > and the RX hash are completely unrelated, then the end result of > the hash distribution should be independent of each other (independent > in the probablistic sense). That is, for the flows which have > been RX hashed into one queue, they should be hashed on average > across all queues by the TX hash. Conversely, those that have > been hashed into one TX queue would be distributed across all > RX queues. Theoretically perhaps you are right. Can I at least get some commitment that someone will test that this really is necessary before we add the CPU ID hash option? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
