Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752461AbdI0X0U (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:26:20 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]:53083 "EHLO mail-oi0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752231AbdI0X0S (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:26:18 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCN/IDx9HTYcfFHx6CVdLnuL1677J8ooSIyjWqo57yxKS/RWmjLIBN5t2cyrl9H3f24FTy/RZvkAYLRZG6WqQo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170927230042-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1506500637-13881-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20170927230042-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Willem de Bruijn Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 19:25:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] support changing steering policies in tuntap To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Jason Wang , Network Development , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 644 Lines: 13 >> In the future, both simple and sophisticated policy like RSS or other guest >> driven steering policies could be done on top. > > IMHO there should be a more practical example before adding all this > indirection. And it would be nice to understand why this queue selection > needs to be tun specific. I was thinking the same and this reminds me of the various strategies implemented in packet fanout. tun_cpu_select_queue is analogous to fanout_demux_cpu though it is tun-specific in that it requires tun->numqueues. Fanout accrued various strategies until it gained an eBPF variant. Just supporting BPF is probably sufficient here, too.