On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:09:04 +0100 Björn Töpel wrote:
> Ideally, it would be best not having to introduce yet another xmit
> ndo. I believe ndo_xdp_xmit/ndo_xdp_flush would be the best fit, but
> we need to extend it with a destructor callback and potentially some
> kind of DMA trait. Why DMA? F
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:01:01 +0100 Björn Töpel wrote:
> 2017-11-14 18:19 GMT+01:00 Jesper Dangaard Brouer :
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:07:47 +0900 Björn Töpel
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'll summarize the major points, that we'll address in the next RFC
> >> below.
> >>
> >> * Instead of extend
2017-11-16 4:35 GMT+01:00 Willem de Bruijn :
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 11/14/17 4:20 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> * Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx
>>> in a separate patchset.
>>
>>
>>>
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 11/14/17 4:20 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>
>>
>> * Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx
>> in a separate patchset.
>
>
>
> all sounds good to me except above bit.
>
On 11/14/17 4:20 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
* Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx
in a separate patchset.
all sounds good to me except above bit.
I don't remember people suggesting to split it this way.
What's the value of it without tx?
We definitely need
2017-11-14 18:19 GMT+01:00 Jesper Dangaard Brouer :
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:07:47 +0900 Björn Töpel wrote:
>
>> I'll summarize the major points, that we'll address in the next RFC
>> below.
>>
>> * Instead of extending AF_PACKET with yet another version, introduce a
>> new address/packet fami
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:07:47 +0900 Björn Töpel wrote:
> I'll summarize the major points, that we'll address in the next RFC
> below.
>
> * Instead of extending AF_PACKET with yet another version, introduce a
> new address/packet family. As for naming had some name suggestions:
> AF_CAPTURE,
* Limit the scope of the first patchset to Rx only, and introduce Tx
in a separate patchset.
>>>
>>>
>>> all sounds good to me except above bit.
>>> I don't remember people suggesting to split it this way.
>>> What's the value of it without tx?
>>>
>>
>> We definitely need Tx for o
On 11/13/2017 09:33 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
> 2017-11-14 0:50 GMT+01:00 Alexei Starovoitov :
>> On 11/13/17 9:07 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>>
>>> 2017-10-31 13:41 GMT+01:00 Björn Töpel :
From: Björn Töpel
>>> [...]
We'll do a presentation on AF_PACKET V4 in NetDev 2.2 [1
2017-11-14 0:50 GMT+01:00 Alexei Starovoitov :
> On 11/13/17 9:07 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>
>> 2017-10-31 13:41 GMT+01:00 Björn Töpel :
>>>
>>> From: Björn Töpel
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> We'll do a presentation on AF_PACKET V4 in NetDev 2.2 [1] Seoul,
>>> Korea, and our paper with complete benchma
On 11/13/17 9:07 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
2017-10-31 13:41 GMT+01:00 Björn Töpel :
From: Björn Töpel
[...]
We'll do a presentation on AF_PACKET V4 in NetDev 2.2 [1] Seoul,
Korea, and our paper with complete benchmarks will be released shortly
on the NetDev 2.2 site.
We're back in the saddl
On 11/13/2017 05:07 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
> 2017-10-31 13:41 GMT+01:00 Björn Töpel :
>> From: Björn Töpel
>>
> [...]
>>
>> We'll do a presentation on AF_PACKET V4 in NetDev 2.2 [1] Seoul,
>> Korea, and our paper with complete benchmarks will be released shortly
>> on the NetDev 2.2 site.
>>
>
>
2017-10-31 13:41 GMT+01:00 Björn Töpel :
> From: Björn Töpel
>
[...]
>
> We'll do a presentation on AF_PACKET V4 in NetDev 2.2 [1] Seoul,
> Korea, and our paper with complete benchmarks will be released shortly
> on the NetDev 2.2 site.
>
We're back in the saddle after an excellent netdevconf wee
nghai, Anjali ;
>> Rosen, Rami ; Shaw, Jeffrey B
>> ; Yigit, Ferruh ; Zhang,
>> Qi Z
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] Introducing AF_PACKET V4 support
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Björn Töpel
>> wrote:
>> > From: Björn Töpel
>
Jesper
> Dangaard Brouer ; michael.lundkv...@ericsson.com;
> ravineet.si...@ericsson.com; Daniel Borkmann ;
> Network Development ; Topel, Bjorn
> ; Brandeburg, Jesse
> ; Singhai, Anjali ;
> Rosen, Rami ; Shaw, Jeffrey B
> ; Yigit, Ferruh ; Zhang,
> Qi Z
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
> From: Björn Töpel
>
> This RFC introduces AF_PACKET_V4 and PACKET_ZEROCOPY that are
> optimized for high performance packet processing and zero-copy
> semantics. Throughput improvements can be up to 40x compared to V2 and
> V3 for the micro be
From: Björn Töpel
This RFC introduces AF_PACKET_V4 and PACKET_ZEROCOPY that are
optimized for high performance packet processing and zero-copy
semantics. Throughput improvements can be up to 40x compared to V2 and
V3 for the micro benchmarks included. Would be great to get your
feedback on it.
T
17 matches
Mail list logo
