Hi All,
I am interested in OVS HW offload support.
Is there any plan for implementing HW offload support for upcoming OVS
releases?
If implementation is already started, please point me to the source.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:58:08PM -08
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:58:08PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> [...]
>
> >>>Doesn't this imply two entities to be independently managing the same
> >>>physical resource? If so, this raises questions of how the resource
> >>>would be partitioned between them? How are conflicting requests
> >>>be
I find it funny that we haven't even got a L3 forwarding
implementation fleshed out enough to merge into the tree, and people
are talking about VOIP to VLAN classification, hw bug workarounds, and
shit like that.
Everyone is really jumping the gun on all of this.
Nobody knows what we will need,
On 5 March 2015 at 22:03, B Viswanath wrote:
> On 5 March 2015 at 20:22, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 03/05/2015 05:16 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>>
>
> Once the reservation of resources occurs we wouldn't let user space
> arbitrarily write to any table but only tables that have been
>>
On 5 March 2015 at 20:22, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 03/05/2015 05:16 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>
Once the reservation of resources occurs we wouldn't let user space
arbitrarily write to any table but only tables that have been
explicitly reserved for user space to write to.
>>
On 03/05/2015 05:16 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 03/05/15 07:37, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 03/05/15 02:39, John Fastabend wrote:
Would kernel boot/module options passed to the driver not suffice?
That implies a central authority that decides what these table size
slicing looks like.
The
On 03/05/15 07:37, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 03/05/15 02:39, John Fastabend wrote:
Would kernel boot/module options passed to the driver not suffice?
That implies a central authority that decides what these table size
slicing looks like.
Once the reservation of resources occurs we wouldn't
On 03/05/15 02:39, John Fastabend wrote:
The intent was to reserve space in the tables for l2, l3, user space,
and whatever else is needed. This reservation needs to come from the
administrator because even the kernel doesn't know how much of my
table space I want to reserve for l2 vs l3 vs tc
On 03/04/2015 10:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Tom Herbert
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:20:41 -0800
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:00 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: John Fastabend
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:54:54 -0800
I think a set operation _is_ necessary for OVS and other
applications that run
From: Tom Herbert
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 21:20:41 -0800
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:00 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: John Fastabend
>> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:54:54 -0800
>>
>>> I think a set operation _is_ necessary for OVS and other
>>> applications that run in user space.
>>
>> It's neces
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:00 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: John Fastabend
> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:54:54 -0800
>
>> I think a set operation _is_ necessary for OVS and other
>> applications that run in user space.
>
> It's necessary for the kernel to internally manage the chip
> flow resources
From: John Fastabend
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:54:54 -0800
> I think a set operation _is_ necessary for OVS and other
> applications that run in user space.
It's necessary for the kernel to internally manage the chip
flow resources.
Full stop.
It's not being exported to userspace. That is exa
[...]
Doesn't this imply two entities to be independently managing the same
physical resource? If so, this raises questions of how the resource
would be partitioned between them? How are conflicting requests
between the two rectified?
What two entities? The driver + flow API code I have in th
On 03/04/2015 04:04 PM, David Christensen wrote:
That said, my working assumptions are:
* That Open vSwitch may manage flow offloads from user-space. This is as
opposed to them being transparently handled in the datapath. This does
not preclude the existence of transparent offloading in th
> > That said, my working assumptions are:
> >
> > * That Open vSwitch may manage flow offloads from user-space. This is as
> > opposed to them being transparently handled in the datapath. This does
> > not preclude the existence of transparent offloading in the datapath.
> > But rather limit
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:07 AM, John Fastabend
wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 08:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simon, a few comments inline.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Simon Horman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ CCed netdev as although this is primarily about Open vSwitch userspace
>>>I believe
On 03/04/2015 08:45 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
Hi Simon, a few comments inline.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
[ CCed netdev as although this is primarily about Open vSwitch userspace
I believe there are some interested parties not on the Open vSwitch
dev mailing list ]
Hi Simon, a few comments inline.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> [ CCed netdev as although this is primarily about Open vSwitch userspace
> I believe there are some interested parties not on the Open vSwitch
> dev mailing list ]
>
> Hi,
>
> The purpose of this email is t
18 matches
Mail list logo
