[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c737048e-5e65-4b16-ffba-5493da556151@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 18:30:31 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
"Ertman, David M" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 00/15] Add mlx5 subfunction support
On 12/16/20 3:53 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> The problem in my case was based on a past experience where east-west
> traffic became a problem and it was easily shown that bypassing the
> NIC for traffic was significantly faster.
If a deployment expects a lot of east-west traffic *within a host* why
is it using hardware based isolation like a VF. That is a side effect of
a design choice that is remedied by other options.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists