OK. I applied both patches to master. Thank you! On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:27:31AM +0000, Yi Yang (杨燚)-云服务集团 wrote: > Ben, I think the patch using recvmmsg is ready for merge if you want, > basically 4.15 or later kernels can support TPACKET_V3, I'm not sure if > recvmmsg and TPACKET_V3 can coexist, do you mean we can use config HAVE_ > TPACKET_V3/2 to build different version for different kernel? > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@ovn.org] > 发送时间: 2020年1月8日 4:11 > 收件人: Yi Yang (杨燚)-云服务集团 <yangy...@inspur.com> > 抄送: d...@openvswitch.org > 主题: Re: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] socket-util: Introduce emulation and wrapper for > recvmmsg(). > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 12:22:52AM +0000, Yi Yang (杨燚)-云服务集团 wrote: > > Ben, socket.h in master does include sendmmsg > > > > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/include/sparse/sys/sock > > et.h#L165 > > > > Per your explanation, I understood why you call recvmsg there, so I don't > > have other comments. > > > > As William explained in his RFC patch, I think TPACKET_V3 is the best way > > to fix this. I tried af_packet to use veth in OVS DPDK, it's performance is > > 2 times more than my patch, about 4Gbps, for my patch, veth performance is > > about 1.47Gbps, af_packet just used TPACKET_V2, TPACKET_V3 should be much > > better than TPACKET_V2 per William's explanation. > > OK. Do you want to continue working to use recvmmsg() in OVS? Or do you > want to withdraw the idea in favor of TPACKET_V3? The possible advantage of > recvmmsg() is that it's going to be available pretty much everywhere, whereas > TPACKET_V3 is a more recent addition to Linux.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
