[RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2
The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of that one. include/linux/if_link.h | 25 ++ include/linux/if_vlan.h |7 net/8021q/Makefile |2 net/8021q/vlan.c | 537 +++ net/8021q/vlan.h | 21 + net/8021q/vlan_dev.c | 170 +- net/8021q/vlan_netlink.c | 209 ++ net/8021q/vlanproc.c |4 8 files changed, 586 insertions(+), 389 deletions(-) Patrick McHardy (10): [VLAN]: Fix off-by-ones in VLAN ID checks [VLAN]: Convert name-based configuration functions to struct netdevice * [VLAN]: Move some device intialization code to dev-init callback [VLAN]: Move vlan_group allocation to seperate function [VLAN]: Split up device checks [VLAN]: Move device registation to seperate function [VLAN]: Return proper error codes in register_vlan_device [VLAN]: Use 32 bit value for skb-priority mapping [VLAN]: Keep track of number of QoS mappings [VLAN]: Use rtnl_link API - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2
Patrick McHardy wrote: The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of that one. Is there any significant performance penalty in creating VLANs using these patches? If you have a test station handy, could you let us know what 'time' shows for a script creating 4000 VLANs with the old vconfig/ioctl method v/s this new method? I'll try to look through the rest of the patches in detail later today. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2
Ben Greear wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of that one. Is there any significant performance penalty in creating VLANs using these patches? If you have a test station handy, could you let us know what 'time' shows for a script creating 4000 VLANs with the old vconfig/ioctl method v/s this new method? Not significantly more, for 1000 VLANs I get: ip link add: real0m22.836s user0m0.100s sys 0m5.850s vconfig add: real0m19.739s user0m0.090s sys 0m3.600s ip -b (batch add): real0m5.239s user0m0.280s sys 0m3.480s I'll try to look through the rest of the patches in detail later today. Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2
Patrick McHardy wrote: Ben Greear wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of that one. Is there any significant performance penalty in creating VLANs using these patches? If you have a test station handy, could you let us know what 'time' shows for a script creating 4000 VLANs with the old vconfig/ioctl method v/s this new method? Not significantly more, for 1000 VLANs I get: ip link add: real0m22.836s user0m0.100s sys 0m5.850s vconfig add: real0m19.739s user0m0.090s sys 0m3.600s Thanks for doing the tests. That small performance drop seems fine to me. ip -b (batch add): real0m5.239s user0m0.280s sys 0m3.480s And that looks quite interesting! Ben -- Ben Greear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC VLAN 00/10]: VLAN netlink support try 2
Ben Greear wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: Ben Greear wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: The last VLAN patchset was outdated, sorry about the mixup. These are the correct patches. The iproute patch I posted was correct, so no repost of that one. Is there any significant performance penalty in creating VLANs using these patches? If you have a test station handy, could you let us know what 'time' shows for a script creating 4000 VLANs with the old vconfig/ioctl method v/s this new method? Not significantly more, for 1000 VLANs I get: ip link add: real0m22.836s user0m0.100s sys 0m5.850s vconfig add: real0m19.739s user0m0.090s sys 0m3.600s Thanks for doing the tests. That small performance drop seems fine to me. I'll try to speed it up a bit more, my initial version needed something like 10s for 1000 VLANs. I suspect the iproute RTM_NEWLINK probing done for every (non-batched) operation adds quite significantly to the overhead. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
