On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 03:00:11PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:25:34PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > > Hi Herbert and Jamal (and everyone else), > > > > Sorry about starting yet another thread but the other one went in so > > many directions that I think a lot of things got lost in it. As I > > mentioned before, I'd like to have a bit of a design discussion of > > what it would look like if Open vSwitch were to use some of the > > existing components (and really focus on just that). There were a > > number of suggestions made about using parts of the bridge, tc, > > netfilter, etc. and some of them overlap or conflict so I don't quite > > have a coherent solution in mind. Would you guys mind walking through > > what each of you envision it looking like? > > Personally I think your patches are fine as is. > > It would obviously be nice if we could refactor the code as Jamal > suggested into classifiers/actions, which would allow us to reuse > them elsewhere, e.g., the flow cache classifier could be merged > with the GRO mechanism, or something even grander like the unified > flow cache, while the using standard actions would make all > existing actions available and generalise OVS into something > that allows you to direct traffic at will to any destination > in a system, without having to have a data-path object at all. > > But really I don't see immediate gains that are big enough to > warrant any actions in that direction right now. If we really > wanted to do that in future we can always add those classifiers > and actions and migrate things over. > > The other factor I considered is scalability. The OVS code as is > is not really friendly to SMP/NUMA scalability (but as Eric pointed, > neither is the classifier/action layer). However, if this were to > become a problem in future I'm sure we could extend either the > interface as is (e.g., deploying multiqueue netlink sockets), or > migrate to something else. > > So I don't really have any objections to this going into the tree.
I apologies for being rather quiet in this discussion up until now, the only reason for which being that I have been rather busy with other things. I have now made a few comments on some other posts with regards to scaling of flow counts and creation rates as I have done some work in that area recently. But as I have been involved in Open vSwitch for a while now I feel it would remiss of me to not (finally) publicly state that I am supportive of the current merge effort. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
