[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56CDA47D.30907@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:39:25 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, dj@...izon.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 1/5] introduce IFE action
On 16-02-24 12:46 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:12:34PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> From my point of view the test should be weather the encapsulation might
> reasonably be expected to be used outside of the context of tc. If so then
> it makes sense to use a netdev to allow sharing of infrastructure between
> different kernel components.
>
> I suspect the answer to that question is no and thus IMHO a netdev would be
> nice to have rather than compelling.
>
> With regards to overhead of netdevs: I think that could be mitigated to
> some extent by using LWT or some other metadata-based approach to allow a
> single netdev to be use by multiple tc action instances.
We actually have a use case where we offload this thing into
an embedded NIC.
In any case it doesnt make much sense to use a netdev for reasons i
specified. Just like it doesnt make sense when i want a policy which
pushes or pops vlans or vxlans to use netdevs either.
Yes it quacks like a duck(i.e has receive) and walks like a duck(has
stats) but it looks like an ostrich;->
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists