On Jun 10, 2013, at 20:04 , ext Jesse Gross wrote:
>
>>>> +static bool __flow_cmp_key_mask(struct sw_flow *flow, u32 hash, u8
>>>> *key,
>>>> + int key_start, int key_len,
>>>> + struct sw_flow_mask *mfm)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return (flow->hash == hash && (flow->mfm == mfm) &&
>>>> + !memcmp((u8 *)&flow->key + key_start, key, (key_len -
>>>> key_start)));
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Since the flows are non-overlapping, do we need to compare the masks?
>>
>> Yes, we are comparing masked key, which is no longer unique without
>> comparing the mask.
>
> Well, more to the point, I think we want to make sure that they are
> unique. The ordering of the masks has no inherent meaning so in order
> to avoid surprising behavior I think we need to enforce that there is
> no possibility of overlap. This should happen naturally when we start
> looking up exact matches on flow setup.
The masks could be added to the list so as to keep a partial ordering between
the masks, where masks completely covering (have all the same 1-bits + some)
other masks would be closer to the front. This way a full mask (if any) would
be at front, and all-wildcards mask (if any) would be at the back. It would be
safe to stop at first match from the beginning, and maybe more importantly,
there would be no confusion nor any performance penalty for any exact (full
mask) matches, as they would match at the first try. Any additional cycles
would be spent only on flows that currently all go to userspace.
Jarno
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
