I wonder is there any way to bypass RSS for some IP flag values like mf, or
frag_offset

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:57 AM Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2021 15:40:57 +0000
> Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: users <users-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of madhukar mythri
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:58 PM
> > > To: users@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: [dpdk-users] Issue with UDP based fragmented packets on Azure
> > > cloud
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are facing issue with UDP/IP based fragmented packets on Azure cloud
> > > platform with Accelerated-Network enabled ports.
> > >
> > > UDP fragmented Rx packets were able to receive well on media ports.
> But,
> > > when two fragmented packet received, first fragment is received on
> Queue-
> > > 0
> > > and second fragment is received on Queue-1. Ideally all the
> fragments(of
> > > single large packet) should be received single queue based on RSS, so
> that
> > > we can re-assemble as single pkt and process it, which is working well
> in
> > > other platforms on KVM hyper-visors(with I40evf NIC’s).
> > >
> > > I think, the as per RSS hash cacluation all the fragmented pkts should
> > > reach on single-queue(because the 5-tuple hash value will be same), but
> > > this is not happening in-case of Azue VM's Why ?
> > >
> > > Does anybody faced similar issue, please let me know your suggestion.
> > I guess it depends on the fragments themselves,
> > If your first fragment contains a UDP header (the first frag in the
> list)  then the RSS hash will be on the full 5 tuble
> > Src/dst IP and src/dst udp
> > But, for the other frags you'll not get src/dst udp since they are not
> present in the pkt.
> > I guess you should be using only RSS On IP header to make all frags go
> to the same queue.
> > >
>
> Yes, and this is not unique to Azure or even the DPDK.
> Fragmented packets do not have enough information (no UDP header in second
> fragment)
> to do L4 RSS.
>
>

Reply via email to