Messages in this thread | | | From | Štefan Gula <> | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:57:30 +0100 | Subject | Re: [patch v4, kernel version 3.2.1] net/ipv4/ip_gre: Ethernet multipoint GRE over IP |
| |
2012/1/26 David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>: > From: Štefan Gula <steweg@ynet.sk> > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:57:18 +0100 > >> The performance is one of the most critical thing why I have chosen to >> build kernel patch in the first place instead of some user-space app. >> If I used this approach, I would probably end up with patch for >> OpenVPN project instead in that time. I am not telling that >> openvswitch is not a good place for prototyping, but I believe that >> this patch is beyond that border as it successfully run in environment >> with more 98 linux-based APs, used for 4K+ users, with no issue for >> more than 2 years. The performance results from Joseph Glanville even >> adds value to it. So I still don't get the point, why my patch and >> openvswitch cannot coexists in the kernel together and let user/admin >> to choose to correct solution for him/her. > > You don't even know if openvswitch could provide acceptable levels > of performance, because you haven't even tried. > > I'm not applying your patch. Performance of any user-space application is lower than performance of something running purely inside the kernel-space only. So still don't see any valid reason, why it simply cannot coexists as it doesn't breaks any existing functionality at all? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |