From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752730Ab1HSJa6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:30:58 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:47229 "EHLO localhost.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751896Ab1HSJa4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:30:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:28:35 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: San Mehat Cc: davem@davemloft.net, mst@redhat.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, digitaleric@google.com, mikew@google.com, miche@google.com, maccarro@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC 0/0] Introducing a generic socket offload framework Message-ID: <20110819102835.0a6b2436@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20110818220756.5C93E5C80B@san.sea.corp.google.com> <20110818235719.50365b0b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.24.4; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I have no desire to change the 'genericness' of sockets.. just the > opposite - i wish to > introduce the notion that sockets (can be) completely generic (when > offloaded) as far as > the guest is concerned. I suppose my concern is that you don't want to design for a specific offload device, your offload might change but the view from the application side should not differ. > > This guest only view means you can't use the abstraction for local > > sockets too. > > > > To be honest, the way we're attempting to integrate is in such a way > that you *could* > offload AF_LOCAL sockets... but that world gets a bit too much like > the 'Twilight Zone' > for my current linkings.. Until you want to be able to have a pair of apps talking that may or may not be on different systems and may or may not be on a vm host at all, at which point having the same acceleration between them (a null accelerator so to speak) would avoid having to add extra paths to the apps. > > And yes there is still the complicated cases such as 'the routing table > > has changed from vitual host to via siberia now what' but I don't believe > > your proposal addresses that either. > > Can you be more specific? If you mean solving the 'keeping your tcp connections > open to non virtual endpoints across a migration (or whatever)' then > no it doesn't :) That was my assumption.