From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat•com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech•com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta•com>,
netdev@vger•kernel.org, davem@davemloft•net, kaber@trash•net,
fubar@us•ibm.com, eric.dumazet@gmail•com,
nicolas.2p.debian@gmail•com, andy@greyhouse•net
Subject: Re: [RFC patch net-next-2.6] net: allow multiple rx_handler registration
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:32:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110630173258.GC2056@minipsycho> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E0CB26C.9070305@candelatech.com>
Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:29:16PM CEST, greearb@candelatech•com wrote:
>On 06/30/2011 10:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 06:27:12PM CEST, shemminger@vyatta•com wrote:
>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:49 +0200
>>>Jiri Pirko<jpirko@redhat•com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>For some net topos it is necessary to have multiple "soft-net-devices"
>>>>hooked on one netdev. For example very common is to have
>>>>eth<->(br+vlan). Vlan is not using rh_handler (yet) but also for example
>>>>macvlan would be useful to have hooked on same netdev as br.
>>>>
>>>>This patch introduces rx_handler list. size struct net_device stays
>>>>intact. Measured performance regression on eth-br topo is ~1% (on received
>>>>pkts generated by pktgen) and on eth-bond topo it is ~0.25%
>>>>
>>>>On br I think that the performance can be brought back maybe by using per-cpu
>>>>variables to store port in rx_path (I must check this)
>>>>
>>>>Please comment.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko<jpirko@redhat•com>
>>>
>>>I am ok with the infrastructure, but why should Vlan use rh_handle.
>>
>>Well why it shoudln't. It would fit into what rx_handler is here for - the
>>code would be more unified. Also net_device struct would lose struct
>>vlan_group __rcu *vlgrp pointer (and reducing net_device size is always
>>good thing).
>>
>>>It is wrong to allow macvlan and bridge to share same device.
>>>Right now the code blocks users from doing lots of stupid things.
>>
>>Right, this is since rx_handler was introduced. Before that all these
>>stupid configs were allowed. It's possible easily to forbid unwanted
>>configs by checking priv flags.
>
>What sorts of stupid things? I didn't look at your patch, but does it handle
>ordering? In other words, is a bridge logic always handled before VLAN logic?
>
>The old hard-coded stuff in dev.c inherently determined ordering. For dynamic
>handlers, we may need to enforce ordering to give the user any chance of doing
>things right (it would be very confusing to have the behaviour change completely
>if you added bridge module before vlan module v/s vlan before bridge).
You should read the patch first :) Ordering is handled there.
>
>Thanks,
>Ben
>>
>>>
>>--
>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger•kernel.org
>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>--
>Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech•com>
>Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-30 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-30 15:16 [RFC patch net-next-2.6] net: allow multiple rx_handler registration Jiri Pirko
2011-06-30 16:27 ` Stephen Hemminger
2011-06-30 17:22 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-06-30 17:29 ` Ben Greear
2011-06-30 17:32 ` Jiri Pirko [this message]
2011-07-01 6:36 ` Michał Mirosław
2011-07-01 14:57 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-07-01 15:00 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-07-01 15:01 ` Michał Mirosław
2011-07-01 16:45 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-07-01 16:49 ` Ben Greear
2011-07-01 16:58 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-07-01 17:08 ` David Lamparter
2011-07-01 17:50 ` Michał Mirosław
2011-06-30 18:13 ` Ben Greear
2011-06-30 18:28 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-06-30 18:53 ` Ben Greear
2011-06-30 19:50 ` Nicolas de Pesloüan
2011-07-01 5:45 ` Jiri Pirko
2011-07-01 16:55 ` David Lamparter
2011-07-01 12:48 ` Jiri Pirko
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=20110630173258.GC2056@minipsycho \
--to=jpirko@redhat$(echo .)com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse$(echo .)net \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=fubar@us$(echo .)ibm.com \
--cc=greearb@candelatech$(echo .)com \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.2p.debian@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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