[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140922221727.GA4708@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:17:27 +0100
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
Andy Zhou <azhou@...ira.com>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
aviadr@...lanox.com, Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>,
Neil Jerram <Neil.Jerram@...aswitch.com>, ronye@...lanox.com,
simon.horman@...ronome.com,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 8/9] switchdev: introduce Netlink API
On 09/22/14 at 08:10am, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Thomas, can you (or someone else) quantify what the host case is. I
> suppose there may be merit in using a switch on NIC for kernel bypass
> scenarios, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how this
> could be integrated into the host stack with benefits that outweigh
Personally my primary interest is on lxc and vm based workloads w/
end to end encryption, encap, distributed L3 and NAT, and policy
enforcement including service graphs which imply both east-west
and north-south traffic patterns on a host. The usual I guess ;-)
> complexity. The history of stateful offloads in NICs is not great, and
> encapsulation (stuffing a few bytes of header into a packet) is in
> itself not nearly an expensive enough operation to warrant offloading
No argument here. The direct benchmark comparisons I've measured showed
only around 2% improvement.
What makes stateful offload interesting to me is that the final
desintation of a packet is known at RX and can be redirected to a
queue or VF. This allows to build packet batches on shared pages
while preserving the securiy model.
Will the gains outweigh complexity? I hope so but I don't know for
sure. If you have insights, let me know. What I know for sure is that
I don't want to rely on a kernel bypass for the above.
> to the NIC. Personally, I wish if NIC vendors are going to focus on
> stateful offload I rather see it be for encryption which I believe
> currently does warrant offload at 40G and higher speeds.
Agreed. I would like to be see a focus on both.
--
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