From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>,
Brenden Blanco <bblanco@plumgrid.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:56:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160921215658.2c61ed5e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36ZCdh5iOp6CPfztVKOEkDFgUo1RyqWMJVxhakOYNx8iw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:08:34 -0700 Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch> wrote:
> > On 09/21/16 at 07:19am, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >> certain design that because of constraints on one kernel interface. As
> >> a kernel developer I want flexibility on how we design and implement
> >> things!
> >
> > Perfectly valid argument. I reviewed your ILA changes and did not
> > object to them.
> >
> >
> >> I think there are two questions that this patch set poses for the
> >> community wrt XDP:
> >>
> >> #1: Should we allow alternate code to run in XDP other than BPF?
> >> #2: If #1 is true what is the best way to implement that?
> >>
> >> If the answer to #1 is "no" then the answer to #2 is irrelevant. So
> >> with this RFC I'm hoping we can come the agreement on questions #1.
I vote yes to #1.
> > I'm not opposed to running non-BPF code at XDP. I'm against adding
> > a linked list of hook consumers.
I also worry about the performance impact of a linked list. We should
simple benchmark it instead of discussing it! ;-)
> > Would anyone require to run XDP-BPF in combination ILA? Or XDP-BPF
> > in combination with a potential XDP-nftables? We don't know yet I
> > guess.
> >
> Right. Admittedly, I feel like we owe a bit of reciprocity to
> nftables. For ILA we are using the NF_INET_PRE_ROUTING hook with our
> own code (looks like ipvlan set nfhooks as well). This works really
> well and saves the value of early demux in ILA. Had we not had the
> ability to use nfhooks in this fashion it's likely we would have had
> to create another hook (we did try putting translation in nftables
> rules but that was too inefficient for ILA).
Thinking about it, I actually think Tom is proposing a very valid user
of the XDP hook, which is the kernel itself. And Tom even have a real
first user ILA. The way I read the ILA-RFC-draft[1], the XDP hook
would benefit the NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) component, which
can run separately or run on the Tenant System, where the latter case
could use XDP_PASS.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-02.txt
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-21 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-20 22:00 [PATCH RFC 0/3] xdp: Generalize XDP Tom Herbert
2016-09-20 22:00 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP Tom Herbert
2016-09-20 22:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-09-20 22:40 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-20 22:44 ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-20 22:49 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-20 23:09 ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-20 23:18 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-20 23:43 ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-20 23:59 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-21 0:13 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-21 11:55 ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-21 14:19 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-21 14:48 ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-21 15:08 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-21 19:56 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2016-09-22 13:14 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-22 14:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-09-21 15:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-21 17:26 ` Jakub Kicinski
2016-09-20 23:22 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-09-21 0:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-21 6:39 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-21 8:42 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-09-21 15:44 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-21 17:26 ` Jakub Kicinski
2016-09-21 17:39 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-21 18:45 ` Jakub Kicinski
2016-09-21 18:50 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-21 18:54 ` Jakub Kicinski
2016-09-21 18:58 ` Thomas Graf
2016-09-23 11:13 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-09-23 13:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-23 14:26 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-25 11:32 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-09-23 14:14 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-25 12:29 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
2016-09-20 22:00 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] mlx4: Change XDP/BPF to use generic XDP infrastructure Tom Herbert
2016-09-20 22:00 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] netdevice: Remove obsolete xdp_netdev_command Tom Herbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160921215658.2c61ed5e@redhat.com \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bblanco@plumgrid.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tariqt@mellanox.com \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
--cc=tom@herbertland.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).