From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>
Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com
 [209.85.214.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD530595B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:19:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id wn1so11424369obc.32
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=sidebandnetworks.com; s=google;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=+uFIX6+s5Tc+SjxKsYkJYp32CPiCr2fnAjN09cmk11o=;
 b=HQYXuzjIizImeeAHi8kvFUeN4M4YZZx2S3RQtyiWFNK8CJAtrChZOvWlX7zgLSfjNH
 e9g4kgU0IO8RxxTmKPngWB2wy7KvTPEY4cJzdm7c7GaGl8lkBmjxXuFKfJhZsl0chKy+
 f0F/EVBMpvEMvf0hnp4SlI6AUjWhNA0iKs8/A=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc
 :content-type;
 bh=+uFIX6+s5Tc+SjxKsYkJYp32CPiCr2fnAjN09cmk11o=;
 b=cSPrjoiSR3Xyy5gC6CkEaafINjyBsFC0CfJ71kr+rowAWA4w2Ye0mhHnU+/G2iInkE
 9v64CxlVC2zm1jejK3GCDGhMhrcEt2wYvBmjaVHhhSEMRiYQYfqCD2GZ7T1xPro9+sih
 Fy2uWBnFb/FjX7TKFWG7wssHmePS16QEIZqWWv/MzyVr06QyoG0fmPxC4n+Vc119R+i0
 fkw8CZCCBkcCx3+8XaZuwl+ZjZMpi/J3YHyhm3w1chusf6D3izKDAhM6RBXWOa4tYsnh
 k4QmluQcAincaTwBTOJtUHsz1qriz3jFiE/mzgPPw62Y2Hbk1X7XxzYOVXekYDvyvKh5
 lZSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkBK2Y+V2d+e/+bVSfNkZsi/WJpIRqDT3QlouINi+yycXHmduXAImn/KRUrSIA0FOWe/FIq
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.89.132 with SMTP id n126mr93585oib.109.1415903372600;
 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.48.78 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:29:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPrTskioYqu_aad7EeepyuYb-9wDZWDOWXQpdCrD5Yofom__vA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kamraan Nasim <knasim@sidebandnetworks.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: Yuanzhang Hu <YHu@sidebandnetworks.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Load-balancing position field in DPDK load_balancer
 sample app vs. Hash table
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:19:34 -0000

Hello,

So i've borrowed some code from the DPDK Load balancer sample application,
specifically the load balancing position(byte 29th) to determine which
worker lcore to forward the packet to.

The idea is that flow affinity should be maintained and all packets from
the same flow would have the same checksum/5-tuple value

worker_id = packet[load_balancing_field] % n_workers

Question is that how reliable is this load balancing position? I am tempted
to use Hash tables but I think this position based mechanism may be faster.

How have people's experience with this been in general?


--Kam