On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch> wrote: > On 08/26/15 at 06:19pm, Jiri Benc wrote: >> might be a noise. However, there's definitely room for performance >> improvement here, the lwtunnel vxlan throughput is at about ~40% of the >> non-vxlan throughput. I did not spend too much time on analyzing this, yet, >> but it's clear the dst_entry layout is not our biggest concern here. > > I'm currently working on reducing the overhead for VXLAN and Gre and > effectively Geneve once Pravin's work is in. The main disadvantage > of lwt based flow tunneling is the additional fib_lookup() performed > for each packet. It seems tempting to cache the tunnel endpoint dst in > the lwt state of the overlay route. It will usually point to the same > dst for every packet. The cache behaviour if dependant on no fib rules > are and the route is a single nexthop route. > Or set nexthop appropriately. This what we do for ILA. Works great without any other dst references, but might put to much weight in the administrator to configure nexthop per encapsulating destination.
Tom > Did you test with a card that features UDP encapsulation offloads? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
