From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 COLO 10/15] COLO proxy: implement setup/teardown of COLO proxy module Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:48:06 +0800 Message-ID: <558BC046.7090506@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1433735159-26739-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1433735159-26739-11-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1434453859.13744.122.camel@citrix.com> <1434453977.13744.123.camel@citrix.com> <558B901C.2020805@cn.fujitsu.com> <1435221549.28264.302.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1435221549.28264.302.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, yunhong.jiang@intel.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/25/2015 04:39 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 13:22 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote: >> >> On 06/16/2015 07:26 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 12:24 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 11:45 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote: >>>>> setup/teardown of COLO proxy module. >>>>> we use netlink to communicate with proxy module. >>>> >>>> What is a COLO proxy module and where would one get hold of such a >>>> thing? >>>> >>>> Is this a new kernel feature with a patch? If so then please link to its >>>> posting to the appropriate upstream and indicate what you understand of >>>> its progress upstream. >>>> >>>> (I seem to remember discussing a COLO networking component at the >>>> hackathon which seemed like it could be done using existing components, >>>> is that this?) >>> >>> IIRC the existing component I was thinking of was >>> http://www.netfilter.org/projects/libnetfilter_queue/ which allows >>> userspace to do pretty advanced filtering, queueing, gating, delaying >>> etc of packets. >> >> The reason we are not using userspace solution is that we worried about >> the performance. > > Is this a theoretical concern or something which has actually been > observed to be a problem in practice? It is a theoretical concern, we haven't had time try to implement the userspace solution yet. > >> There will be huge amount of packets pass through, the >> context switch cost will be an overhead. The colo-proxy module: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/18/32 >> >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> . >>> >> > > > . > -- Thanks, Yang.