David Miller wrote:

From: Rick Jones <redacted>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:55:24 -0700

quoted

Even enough bits for 1024 or 2048 CPUs in the single system image?  I have seen 
1024 touted by SGI, and with things going so multi-core, perhaps 16384 while 
sounding initially bizzare would be in the realm of theoretically possible 
before tooooo long.

Read the RSS NDIS documents from Microsoft. 

I'll see about hunting them down.

You aren't going to want
to demux to more than, say, 256 cpus for single network adapter even
on the largest machines.

I suppose, it just seems to tweak _small_ alarms in my intuition - maybe because 
it still sounds like networking telling the scheduler where to run threads of 
execution, and even though I'm a networking guy I seem to have the notion that 
it should be the other way 'round.

quoted

That would cover TCP, are there similarly fungible fields in SCTP or
other ULPs?  And if we were to want to get HW support for the thing,
getting it adopted in a de jure standards body would probably be in
order :)

Microsoft never does this, neither do we.  LRO came out of our own
design, the network folks found it reasonable and thus they have
started to implement it.  The same is true for Microsofts RSS stuff.

It's a hardware interpretation, therefore it belongs in a driver API
specification, nowhere else.

It may be a hardware interpretation, but doesn't it have non-trivial system 
implications - where one runs threads/processes etc?

rick jones