lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC net-next 1/6] openvswitch: exclude kernel flow key from upcalls
Date
Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org> writes:

> On 11/22/22 15:03, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> When processing upcall commands, two groups of data are available to
>> userspace for processing: the actual packet data and the kernel
>> sw flow key data. The inclusion of the flow key allows the userspace
>> avoid running through the dissection again.
>>
>> However, the userspace can choose to ignore the flow key data, as is
>> the case in some ovs-vswitchd upcall processing. For these messages,
>> having the flow key data merely adds additional data to the upcall
>> pipeline without any actual gain. Userspace simply throws the data
>> away anyway.
>
> Hi, Aaron. While it's true that OVS in userpsace is re-parsing the
> packet from scratch and using the newly parsed key for the OpenFlow
> translation, the kernel-porvided key is still used in a few important
> places. Mainly for the compatibility checking. The use is described
> here in more details:
> https://docs.kernel.org/networking/openvswitch.html#flow-key-compatibility
>
> We need to compare the key generated in userspace with the key
> generated by the kernel to know if it's safe to install the new flow
> to the kernel, i.e. if the kernel and OVS userpsace are parsing the
> packet in the same way.
>
> On the other hand, OVS today doesn't check the data, it only checks
> which fields are present. So, if we can generate and pass the bitmap
> of fields present in the key or something similar without sending the
> full key, that might still save some CPU cycles and memory in the
> socket buffer while preserving the ability to check for forward and
> backward compatibility. What do you think?

Maybe that can work. I will try testing. If so, then I would change
this semantic to send just the bitmap rather than omitting everything.

> The rest of the patch set seems useful even without patch #1 though.

I agree - but I didn't know if it made sense to submit the series
without adding something impactful (like a test). I will work a bit
more on the flow area - maybe I can add enough actions and matches to
implement basic flow tests to submit while we think more about the feature.

> Nit: This patch #1 should probably be merged with the patch #6 and be
> at the end of a patch set, so the selftest and the main code are updated
> at the same time.

Okay - I can restructure them this way.

> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-29 15:32    [W:0.069 / U:2.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site