From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:24:28 -0700
> + if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 &&
> + skb->l4_hash)
> + return skb->hash;
Applied, with the indentation of the return statement fixed up.
:-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 16:45 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> > + if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 &&
>> > + skb->l4_hash)
>> > + return skb->hash;
>> > +
>> > if (bond->params.x
On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 17:15 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> A more fundamental question is whether we can eliminate some of these
> hashing types (I see five of them in if_bonding.h). Is there any
> substantial difference between this and IPv4/v6 ECMP routing such that
> they shouldn't all have the sa
On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 17:04 -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eric Dumazet 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 (EN
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 16:45 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> > + if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 &&
>> > + skb->l4_hash)
>> > + return skb->hash;
>> > +
>> > if (bond->params.x
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eric Dumazet 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_P
On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 16:45 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> > + if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 &&
> > + skb->l4_hash)
> > + return skb->hash;
> > +
> > if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_LAYER2 ||
> > !bon
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> If skb carries a l4 hash, no need to perform a flow dissection.
>
> Performance is slightly better :
>
> lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t TCP_RR -l 100
> 2.39012e+06
> lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t TC
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 a
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> If skb carries a l4 hash, no need to perform a flow dissection.
>
> Performance is slightly better :
>
> lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t TCP_RR -l 100
> 2.39012e+06
> lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t
From: Eric Dumazet
If skb carries a l4 hash, no need to perform a flow dissection.
Performance is slightly better :
lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t TCP_RR -l 100
2.39012e+06
lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t TCP_RR -l 100
2.39393e+06
lpaa5:~# ./super_netperf 200 -H lpaa6 -t TCP_
11 matches
Mail list logo
