From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:02:33 +0800

quoted text
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 09:51:24AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > How so?  If the TX hash is well distributed, which it should be,
> > it is at least going to approximate the distribution provided by
> > the RX hash.
> 
> This is a matter of probabilities :) In general, if the TX hash
> and the RX hash are completely unrelated, then the end result of
> the hash distribution should be independent of each other (independent
> in the probablistic sense).  That is, for the flows which have
> been RX hashed into one queue, they should be hashed on average
> across all queues by the TX hash.  Conversely, those that have
> been hashed into one TX queue would be distributed across all
> RX queues.

Theoretically perhaps you are right.

Can I at least get some commitment that someone will test
that this really is necessary before we add the CPU ID
hash option?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html