[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150226190544.GA1631@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:05:44 +0000
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David 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>, jpettit@...ira.com,
Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>, shrijeet@...il.com,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>, bcrl@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Flows! Offload them.
On 02/26/15 at 10:15am, Tom Herbert wrote:
> But, routing (aka switching) in the stack is not configured through
> TC. We have a whole forwarding and routing infrastructure (eg.
> iproute) with optimizations that allow routes to be cached in
> sockets, etc. To me, it seems like offloading that basic functionality
> is a prerequisite before attempting to offload more advanced policy
> mechanisms of TC, netfilter, etc.
It is visible that you are coming from container focused world
with sockets on the host ;-) The L3 offload desire comes primiarly
from a VM centric host where decap+L3 offload to a VF allows to
spend zero cycles on the host kernel. I'm not sure if offload
makes sense at all for container workloads w/o VM isolation per
tentant or orch system or something similar.
--
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