From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 15 14:36:39 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38CE46E2
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:36:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57BC2C96
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:36:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>) id 1X73qN-0001ND-5e
 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:36:35 +0400
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:36:35 +0400
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: UDP/TCP versus IP frames - subtle out of order packets with
 hardware hashing
Message-ID: <20140715143635.GA5178@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <CAJ-VmomUNJ23CHLLX2qryAuE2XQyBmo30du3MuRnobs+wEkguA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53C4EE00.5090705@gmail.com> <20140715093125.GA89128@zxy.spb.ru>
 <53C507F2.2090604@gmail.com> <20140715113319.GA96254@zxy.spb.ru>
 <CAJ-VmomTL=fZnjSTBT6-3KNA0DOqNEefoXNwFipade81dSBK5Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomTL=fZnjSTBT6-3KNA0DOqNEefoXNwFipade81dSBK5Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:36:39 -0000

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 07:33:57AM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> On 15 July 2014 04:33, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:22:34PM +0430, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/15/2014 2:01 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 01:31:52PM +0430, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Doesn't the problem applies to TCP too?
> >> >> TCP may be fragmented too but is less likely because of MSS.
> >> > Don't forget GRE, IPIP, ESP and AH!
> >> >
> >> These protocols don't use port numbers  and the RSS hash is computed based on the
> >> (srcip,dstip) tuple, so the problem does not apply to them.
> >
> > And all flows go to one queue? Bad.
> 
> All the packets between two IP addresses for non-TCP, non-UDP get
> hashed to the same CPU core, yes.
> 
> If you have 1000 IP tunnels to different end-hosts, they'll be on
> different CPUs.

What about two host, 10G link and 1000 TCP connections over IPsec?