On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:50:30AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:18:33AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:00:55PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> >> Not sure why vhost/net doesn't built a packet and feed it in > >> >> netif_rx_ni(). This is what tun seems to do, and with this code it > >> >> should be fairly optimal. > >> > > >> > Because we want to use NAPI. > >> > >> Not quite what I was asking; it was more a question of why we're using a > >> raw socket, when we trivially have a complete skb already which we > >> should be able to feed to Linux like any network packet. > > > > Oh for some reason I thought you were talking about virtio. > > I don't really understand what you are saying here - vhost > > actually calls out to tun to build and submit the skb. > > Ah, the fd is tun? It can be tun or macvtap. We also support a packet socket backend though I don't know of any users, maybe this can be dropped. > Seems a bit indirect; I wonder if there's room for > more optimization here... > > Cheers, > Rusty. Quite possibly. Using common data structures and code in tun and macvtap would allow calling this code directly from vhost-net. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
