I agree completely. I think since this optimization was introduced, enough as changed that I suspect we can remove it without a negative impact. Furthermore, we're so sensitive to memory access patterns now, that I further suspect that removing it may actually help the average case. That said, we need to actually measure the change before we consider merging it.
Ethan On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:38:33PM -0700, Ryan Wilson wrote: >> Sorry for the delayed response. > > No problem. > >> Unfortunately, I've had some issues with setting up an NVP perf >> environment lately so I haven't gotten any numbers. When I do, I'll >> publish them on this thread. >> >> Ethan's rationale is that it simplifies the code and we don't incur >> the memory overhead of allocating a hash map and this would outweigh >> the negative effect of possibly re-processing a packet from the same >> flow. Since userspace forwarding has gotten so much faster, this >> wouldn't be so bad. >> >> Obviously, I need perf numbers to justify these claims; I will post >> them when I do. > > Thanks. > > Let me clarify that I would like to drop the complexity here too. I > just want to be fairly confident that we won't have to reintroduce it. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
