[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <075d507f-9666-f13d-11fa-1d0eb694a3f7@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:53:58 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap
On 2017年09月28日 13:02, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> In the future, both simple and sophisticated policy like RSS or other guest
>>>> driven steering policies could be done on top.
>>> IMHO there should be a more practical example before adding all this
>>> indirection. And it would be nice to understand why this queue selection
>>> needs to be tun specific.
>> I was thinking the same and this reminds me of the various strategies
>> implemented in packet fanout. tun_cpu_select_queue is analogous to
>> fanout_demux_cpu though it is tun-specific in that it requires tun->numqueues.
>>
>> Fanout accrued various strategies until it gained an eBPF variant. Just
>> supporting BPF is probably sufficient here, too.
> +1, in addition to packet fanout, we have SO_REUSEPORT with BPF, RPS,
> RFS, etc. It would be nice if existing packet steering mechanisms
> could be leveraged for tun.
This could be done by using the API introduced in this series, I can try
this in V2.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists