On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:22 PM David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 14:53:09 -0700 > > > I will send a revert with quote of the above. > > And it will go to /dev/null as far as I am concerned. I read it the > first time, so posting it again will not change my opinion of what you > have to say. David, you claim you read it, now tell me, where is "cgroups" or "cpu" from? This is the link of my reply you quoted: https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=153013948711582&w=2 I did mention cgroups to Eric because of isolation, the softnet_data is per-CPU, and CPU is not isolated by netns apparently, therefore sd->input_pkt_queue can't be totally isolated for netns without cpuset. But this is never the reason why I dislike it, this is why I never even mentioned it in the link above. > > Cong, you really need to calm down and understand that people perhaps > simply fundamentally disagree with you. 1. Eric's "forwarding to eth0" is missing, never brought up until in his private reply. Without this information, XPS makes no sense at all in this patchset. For the record, I provide a different solution for Eric. 2. No one responses to: https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=153013948711582&w=2 I never expect you agree with me on all of them, but no one gives me any response to my concerns. 3. I will write a blog post to draw you some pictures, since it is so hard to understand the isolation... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
