Ben Greear wrote: > Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have > to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way > you'll probably get a big performance hit. Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding performance where macvlan-->veth-->macvlan gives 680K PPS (again, I made sure that the bridge has applied learning before I start the test). Basically, both the bridge and macvlan use hash on the destination mac in order to know to which device forward the packet, is there anything in the bridge logic that can explain the gap? It there something which isn't really apples-to-apples in this comparison?
Or. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
