On 10/10/2018 11:23 AM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> For that matter, lots of features are "default off" until someone configures
> them, and there are lots of features that are only used by a subset of users.
> In this case, we're trying to use something that already exists and arguably
> is
On 10/10/2018 10:37 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
Latest tree has a sk_lookup() helper supported in 'tc' layer now
to lookup the socket. And XDP has support for a "cpumap" object
that allows redirect to remote CPUs. Neither was specifically
designed for this but I suspect with some extra work these
On 10/10/2018 10:14 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 10/10/2018 09:18 AM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
On 10/9/2018 7:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 10/09/2018 07:11 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
Hence the reason we sent this as an RFC a couple of weeks ago. We got no
response, so followed up with this
On 10/10/2018 10:14 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 10/10/2018 09:18 AM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> On 10/9/2018 7:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2018 07:11 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
Hence the reason we sent this as an RFC a couple of weeks ago. We got no
On 10/10/2018 09:18 AM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 7:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/2018 07:11 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hence the reason we sent this as an RFC a couple of weeks ago. We got no
>>> response, so followed up with this patch in order to get some
On 10/9/2018 7:17 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 10/09/2018 07:11 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
Hence the reason we sent this as an RFC a couple of weeks ago. We got no
response, so followed up with this patch in order to get some input. Do you
have any suggestions for how we might accomplish
On 10/09/2018 07:11 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>
> Hence the reason we sent this as an RFC a couple of weeks ago. We got no
> response, so followed up with this patch in order to get some input. Do you
> have any suggestions for how we might accomplish this in a less ugly way?
I dunno,
On 10/9/2018 6:04 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 10/09/2018 05:41 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
From: Silviu Smarandache
This patch modifies the RPS processing code so that it searches
for a matching vlan interface on the packet and then uses the
RPS settings of the vlan interface. If no vlan
On 10/09/2018 05:41 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> From: Silviu Smarandache
>
> This patch modifies the RPS processing code so that it searches
> for a matching vlan interface on the packet and then uses the
> RPS settings of the vlan interface. If no vlan interface
> is found or the vlan
From: Silviu Smarandache
This patch modifies the RPS processing code so that it searches
for a matching vlan interface on the packet and then uses the
RPS settings of the vlan interface. If no vlan interface
is found or the vlan interface does not have RPS enabled,
it will fall back to the RPS
10 matches
Mail list logo
