On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:22 PM Alexander Lobakin <aloba...@pm.me> wrote:
>
> Most of the functions that "convert" hash value into an index
> (when RPS is configured / XPS is not configured / etc.) set
> reciprocal_scale() on it. Its logics is simple, but fair enough and
> accounts the entire input value.
> On the opposite side, 'hash & (GRO_HASH_BUCKETS - 1)' expression uses
> only 3 least significant bits of the value, which is far from
> optimal (especially for XOR RSS hashers, where the hashes of two
> different flows may differ only by 1 bit somewhere in the middle).
>
> Use reciprocal_scale() here too to take the entire hash value into
> account and improve flow dispersion between GRO hash buckets.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <aloba...@pm.me>
> ---
> net/core/dev.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index 65d9e7d9d1e8..bd7c9ba54623 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -5952,7 +5952,7 @@ static void gro_flush_oldest(struct napi_struct *napi,
> struct list_head *head)
>
> static enum gro_result dev_gro_receive(struct napi_struct *napi, struct
> sk_buff *skb)
> {
> - u32 bucket = skb_get_hash_raw(skb) & (GRO_HASH_BUCKETS - 1);
> + u32 bucket = reciprocal_scale(skb_get_hash_raw(skb),
> GRO_HASH_BUCKETS);
This is going to use 3 high order bits instead of 3 low-order bits.
Now, had you use hash_32(skb_get_hash_raw(skb), 3), you could have
claimed to use "more bits"
Toeplitz already shuffles stuff.
Adding a multiply here seems not needed.
Please provide experimental results, because this looks unnecessary to me.
