From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751241AbWFBHCL (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 03:02:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751239AbWFBHCK (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 03:02:10 -0400 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:42719 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751231AbWFBHCJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 03:02:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:01:49 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: David Miller , draghuram@rocketmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" Subject: Re: Question about tcp hash function tcp_hashfn() Message-ID: <20060602070149.GA12213@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20060601060424.GA28087@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060601001825.A21730@openss7.org> <20060601063012.GC28087@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060601004608.C21730@openss7.org> <20060601070136.GA754@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060601011125.C22283@openss7.org> <20060601083805.GB754@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060601042457.B25584@openss7.org> <20060601110625.GA15069@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060601124010.C554@openss7.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060601124010.C554@openss7.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.5 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:01:52 +0400 (MSD) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:40:10PM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock (bidulock@openss7.org) wrote: > So what are your thoughts about my sequence number approach (for > connected sockets)? Depending on how you are going to use it. Generic socket code does not have TCP sequence numbers since it must work with all supported protocols. Netchannels also do not know about internals of the packet by design, since all protocol processing is performed at the end peer. Sequence number can be wrapped in minutes in current networks and even faster tomorrow, that is why PAWS was created. Your idea about reinserting the socket does not scale in 1Gbit environment, and definitely will not in 10Gbit. Probably it is possible to create second hash table for TCP sockets only and use that table first in protocol handler, but it requires some research to prove the idea. -- Evgeniy Polyakov