On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:31 PM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:55:21 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote: > > It would make more sense to just add it as a variant hash function of > > toeplitz. If you did it right you could probably make the formatting > > pretty, something like: > > RSS hash function: > > toeplitz: on > > symmetric xor: on > > xor: off > > crc32: off > > > > It doesn't make sense to place it in the input flags and will just > > cause quick congestion as things get added there. This is an algorithm > > change so it makes more sense to place it there. > > Algo is also a bit confusing, it's more like key pre-processing? > There's nothing toeplitz about xoring input fields. Works as well > for CRC32.. or XOR.
I agree that the change to the algorithm doesn't necessarily have anything to do with toeplitz, however it is still a change to the algorithm by performing the extra XOR on the inputs prior to processing. That is why I figured it might make sense to just add a new hfunc value that would mean toeplitz w/ symmetric XOR. > We can use one of the reserved fields of struct ethtool_rxfh to carry > this extension. I think I asked for this at some point, but there's > only so much repeated feedback one can send in a day :( Why add an extra reserved field when this is just a variant on a hash function? I view it as not being dissimilar to how we handle TSO or tx-checksumming. It would make sense to me to just set something like toeplitz-symmetric-xor to on in order to turn this on. _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
