On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:41:18 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> I am thinking of this from a software engineering perspective. This
> symmetric-xor aka simplified-toeplitz is actually much cheaper to
> implement in software than the original. As such I would want it to be
> considered a separate algorithm as I could make use of something like
> that when having to implement RSS in QEMU for instance.
That's exactly why XOR and CRC32 _algorithms_ already exist.
CPUs have instructions to do them word at a time.
ETH_RSS_HASH_TOP_BIT, /* Configurable RSS hash function -
Toeplitz */
ETH_RSS_HASH_XOR_BIT, /* Configurable RSS hash function - Xor */
ETH_RSS_HASH_CRC32_BIT, /* Configurable RSS hash function - Crc32 */
If efficient SW implementation is important why do some weird
bastardized para-toeplitz and not crc32? Hashes fairly well
from what I recall with the older NFPs. x86 has an instruction
for it, IIRC it was part of SSE but on normal registers.
> Based on earlier comments it doesn't change the inputs, it just
> changes how I have to handle the data and the key. It starts reducing
> things down to something like the Intel implementation of Flow
> Director in terms of how the key gets generated and hashed.
About Flow Director I know only that it is bad :)
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
