[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160708144453.345b51e5@jkicinski-Precision-T1700>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:44:53 +0100
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: "Fastabend, John R" <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
"iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org" <iovisor-dev@...ts.iovisor.org>,
Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>,
Rana Shahout <ranas@...lanox.com>, Ari Saha <as754m@....com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: XDP seeking input from NIC hardware vendors
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:22:12 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > If the goal is to just separate XDP traffic from non-XDP traffic you could accomplish this with a combination of SR-IOV/macvlan to separate the device queues into multiple netdevs and then run XDP on just one of the netdevs. Then use flow director (ethtool) or 'tc cls_u32/flower' to steer traffic to the netdev. This is how we support multiple networking stacks on one device by the way it is called the bifurcated driver. Its not too far of a stretch to think we could offload some simple XDP programs to program the splitting of traffic instead of cls_u32/flower/flow_director and then you would have a stack of XDP programs. One running in hardware and a set running on the queues in software.
>
> the above sounds like much better approach then Jesper/mine prog_per_ring stuff.
> If we can split the nic via sriov and have dedicated netdev via VF just for XDP that's way cleaner approach.
> I guess we won't need to do xdp_rxqmask after all.
+1
I was thinking about using eBPF to direct to NIC queues but concluded
that doing a redirect to a VF is cleaner. Especially if the PF driver
supports VF representatives we could potentially just use
bpf_redirect(VFR netdev) and the VF doesn't even have to be handled by
the same stack.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists