On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 07:23:53 +0300 Boris Pismenny wrote: > On 02/06/2020 1:12, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sun, 31 May 2020 15:06:28 +0300 Boris Pismenny wrote: > >> On 30/05/2020 0:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >> > >>> IIUC every ooo packet causes a resync request in your > >>> implementation - is that true? > >>> > >> No, only header loss. We never required a resync per OOO packet. I'm > >> not sure why would you think that. > > I mean until device is back in sync every frame kicks off > > resync_update_sn() and tries to queue the work, right? > > > Nope, only the first frame triggers resync_update_sn, so as to keep > the process efficient and avoid spamming the system with resync > requests. Per-flow, the device will try again to trigger > resync_update_sn only if it gets out of sync due to out-of-sequence > record headers.
It'd be good to clarify what the ooo counter counts in the documentation, it sounds like it counts first TLS header HW found after seq discontinuity is detected? In fact calling this a ooo counter may be slightly misleading, I like the nfp counters much more: tx_tls_resync_req_ok and tx_tls_resync_req_ign.
