On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Rick Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/27/2016 12:41 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:35 PM, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> >>> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:43:35 -0700 >>> >>>> This seems like it will only confuse users even more. You've clearly >>>> identified an issue, let's figure out how to fix it. >>> >>> >>> I kinda feel the same way about this situation. >> >> >> I'm working on XFS (as the transmit analogue to RFS). We'll track >> flows enough so that we should know when it's safe to move them. > > > Is the XFS you are working on going to subsume XPS or will the two continue > to exist in parallel a la RPS and RFS? > XPS selects the queue, XFS prevents changing the queues when OOO could occur. I am thinking that XFS is only applicable when we don't have a socket tracking OOO. Idea is to have a flow table indexed by packet hash that gives the current TX queue for match flows. The TX queue comes from doing XPS. We only change the queue used by flows if that won't result in OOO as determined by tracking the queue similar to how we do RFS.
Tom > rick jones >
