From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Bernat Subject: Re: [net v1] fib_rules: interface group matching Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:01:10 +0200 Message-ID: <8760pypj21.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch> References: <20160914124025.13417-1-vincent@bernat.im> <9540c014-78c5-9f9c-16d7-75a564f6c018@cumulusnetworks.com> <87h99ipnhu.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch> <87a8fapl7l.fsf@zoro.exoscale.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "David S. Miller" , Nicolas Dichtel , Wilson Kok , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from bart.luffy.cx ([78.47.78.131]:58118 "EHLO bart.luffy.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761966AbcINQBP (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:01:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: (David Ahern's message of "Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:25:49 -0600") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E2=9D=A6 14 septembre 2016 17:25 CEST, David Ahern =C2=A0: >> I could just give more time to VRF. I also had some concerns over >> performance with the way Netfilter integration is done, but I understand >> that I could just stay away from POSTROUTING rules which is the only >> hook executed twice? > With the changes that were committed this past weekend, the VRF code > is now setup where I can set a flag on a per VRF basis to disable the > extra rx and tx processing - ie., no network taps, no netfilter, no > qdisc, etc. Drops the overhead of VRF to ~3% maybe a bit less. I need > to think about the user api a bit more and formalize the patch. Given > my other commitments that probably won't happen until mid-October. But > in terms of a building block, the overhead of VRF is continuing to > drop. Fine by me. We can drop my patch. Thanks! --=20 Program defensively. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)