From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: XDP offload to hypervisor Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 05:33:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20170124053207-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20170123230727-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170124010201.GB60699@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: John Fastabend , jasowang@redhat.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net To: Alexei Starovoitov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33482 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750704AbdAXDdk (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:33:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170124010201.GB60699@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the whole virtio nit picking that was happening. > imo virtio+xdp by itself is only useful for debugging, development and testing > of xdp programs in a VM. The discussion about performance of virtio+xdp > will only be meaningful when corresponding host part is done. > Likely in the form of vhost extensions and may be driver changes. > Trying to optimize virtio+xdp when host is doing traditional skb+vhost > isn't going to be impactful. Well if packets can be dropped without a host/guest transition then yes, that will have an impact even with traditional skbs. -- MST