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. -adrian _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
