From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:53:58 +0800 Message-ID: <075d507f-9666-f13d-11fa-1d0eb694a3f7@redhat.com> References: <1506500637-13881-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20170927230042-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Network Development , LKML To: Tom Herbert , Willem de Bruijn Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 2017年09月28日 13:02, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Willem de Bruijn > 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