[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272757457.27948.27.camel@localhost>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 00:44:17 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, tglx@...utronix.de, shemminger@...tta.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking
On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 15:03 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 12:53:04 +0200
>
> >> And we don't want it to, because the decision mechanisms for steering
> >> that we using now are starting to get into the stateful territory and
> >> that's verbotton for NIC offload as far as we're concerned.
> >
> > Huh? I thought full TCP offload was forbidden?[1] Statefull as in NIC
> > (or someone else like netfilter) tracking flows is quite common and very far
> > from full offload. AFAIK it doesn't have near all the problems full
> > offload has.
>
> We're tracking flow cpu location state at the socket operations, like
> recvmsg() and sendmsg(), where it belongs.
>
> Would you like us to call into the card drivers and firmware at these
> spots instead?
I'm interested in experimenting with this at some point, since our
hardware supports a fairly large number of filters that could be used
for it.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists