From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
To: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
Cc: <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<jonathan.davies@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] xen-netback: TX grant mapping instead of copy
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:43:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1385660592.20209.27.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52977F5C.7090703@citrix.com>
On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 17:37 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 07/11/13 10:52, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 19:00 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> >> On 01/11/13 10:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> Does this always avoid copying when bridging/openvswitching/forwarding
> >>> (e.g. masquerading etc)? For both domU->domU and domU->physical NIC?
> >> I've tested the domU->domU, domU->physical with bridge and openvswitch
> >> usecase, and now I've created a new stat counter to see how often copy
> >> happens (the callback's second parameter tells you whether the skb was
> >> freed or copied). It doesn't do copy in all of these scenarios.
> >> What do you mean by forwarding? The scenario when you use bridge and
> >> iptables mangling with the packet, not just filtering?
> >
> > I mean using L3 routing rather L2 bridging. Which might involve
> > NAT/MASQUERADE or might just be normal IP routing.
> I still couldn't find time to try out this scenario, but I think in this
> case packet goes through deliver_skb, which means it will get copied. So
> performance would be a bit worse due to the extra map/unmap. And I'm
> afraid we can't help that too much due to this:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/20/363
> However I think using Dom0 as a router/firewall is already a suboptimal
> solution, so maybe a small performance regression is acceptable?
Routing/firewalling domUs is as valid as bridging. There is nothing in
the slightest bit suboptimal about it.
If this use case regresses with this approach then I'm afraid that
either needs to be addressed or a different approach considered.
> Anyway, I will try this out, and see if it really copies everything, and
> get some numbers as well.
Thanks.
> >>> How does it deal with broadcast traffic?
> Now I had time to check it: broadcast packets get copied only once, when
> cloning happens. It will swap out the frags with local ones, so any
> subsequent cloning will have a local SKB.
That's good.
Ian.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-28 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-30 0:50 Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 0:50 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 1/5] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant map definitions Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 9:28 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2013-10-31 19:22 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-31 19:33 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 0:50 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 2/5] xen-netback: Change TX path from grant copy to mapping Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 9:11 ` [Xen-devel] " Paul Durrant
2013-10-30 21:10 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-11-01 16:09 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 0:50 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 3/5] xen-netback: Remove old TX grant copy definitons Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 9:39 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2013-10-31 19:46 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 11:13 ` Wei Liu
2013-10-30 0:50 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 4/5] xen-netback: Fix indentations Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 11:13 ` Wei Liu
2013-10-31 19:48 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 0:50 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 4/5] xen-netback: Change RX path for mapped SKB fragments Zoltan Kiss
2013-10-30 19:16 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] xen-netback: TX grant mapping instead of copy Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-10-30 19:17 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-10-30 21:14 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-11-01 10:50 ` Ian Campbell
2013-11-01 19:00 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-11-05 17:01 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-11-07 10:52 ` Ian Campbell
2013-11-28 17:37 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-11-28 17:43 ` Ian Campbell [this message]
2013-12-12 22:08 ` Zoltan Kiss
2013-12-16 10:14 ` Ian Campbell
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=1385660592.20209.27.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com \
--to=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=jonathan.davies@citrix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
--cc=zoltan.kiss@citrix.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®