On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 17:04 -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 15:54 -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote: > > > >> > + if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 && > >> > + skb->l4_hash) > >> if (ENCAP34 || LAYER34) && l4_hash) may be? > > > > Hmm, traditional BOND_XMIT_POLICY_LAYER34 did not a full flow bisection > > (tunnel awareness added in commit > > 32819dc1834866cb9547cb75f81af9edd58d33cd bonding: modify the old and add > > new xmit hash policies) > > > > This could radically change some setups and behavior. > > > > BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 looks a better fit to me. > > > Agreed, this will change flow distribution for LAYER34 policy but then > loose out on calculating hash per packet which I think is unnecessary.
We added new bonding policy exactly for this. If people are stuck with LAYER34, that is their choice. > > This elimination of hash calculation is a good step but I'm feeling > that it's somehow tied to ENCAP policy which is actually orthogonal > and should be applied to LAYER34 also. You can send a followup patch, once fully tested. I've tested the ENCAP34 mode only, I do not want to add cycles for a mode that is potentially a legacy one that nobody uses. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
