On 8 November 2014 14:26, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com>
> wrote:
> > On 7 November 2014 14:15, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > If a datapath is created with the flag OVS_DP_F_INDEX_BY_UFID, then an
> >> > additional table_instance is added to the flow_table, which is indexed
> >> > by unique identifiers ("UFID"). Userspace implementations can specify
> a
> >> > UFID of up to 128 bits along with a flow operation as shorthand for
> the
> >> > key. This allows revalidation performance improvements of up to 50%.
> >> >
> >> > If a datapath is created using OVS_DP_F_INDEX_BY_UFID and a UFID is
> not
> >> > specified at flow setup time, then that operation will fail. If
> >> > OVS_UFID_F_* flags are specified for an operation, then they will
> modify
> >> > what is returned through the operation. For instance,
> >> > OVS_UFID_F_SKIP_KEY
> >> > allows the datapath to skip returning the key (eg, during dump to
> reduce
> >> > memory copy).
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > v9: No change.
> >> > v8: Rename UID -> UFID "unique flow identifier".
> >> > Fix null dereference when adding flow without uid or mask.
> >> > If UFID and not match are specified, and lookup fails, return
> >> > ENOENT.
> >> > Rebase.
> >> > v7: Remove OVS_DP_F_INDEX_BY_UID.
> >> > Rework UID serialisation for variable-length UID.
> >> > Log error if uid not specified and OVS_UID_F_SKIP_KEY is set.
> >> > Rebase against "probe" logging changes.
> >> > v6: Fix documentation for supporting UIDs between 32-128 bits.
> >> > Minor style fixes.
> >> > Rebase.
> >> > v5: No change.
> >> > v4: Fix memory leaks.
> >> > Log when triggering the older userspace issue above.
> >> > v3: Initial post.
> >> > ---
> >>
> >> Patch looks good. I have few comments:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look,
> >
> >>
> >> - Can you make union of unmasked_key and (fid, ufid_hash), since they
> >> are mutually exclusive.
> >
> >
> > Unmasked key may be used when UFID is part of the flow, eg if the full
> flow
> > is requested in ovs_flow_cmd_fill_match(). It should still be populated
> for
> > every flow.
> >
> Why userspace need to know unmasked key if ufids are used for the flow?
One example is when something like ovs-dpctl wants to dump all information
about all of the flows (which dumps unmasked_key and not the masked key). I
think this makes it more consistent with using the output of ovs-dpctl
dump-flows as the input for ovs-dpctl del-flow <foo>.
This is also related to the dpif interface behaviour when both
(unmasked_key, ufid) are specified - eg for delete it first tries to index
by UFID, then if that fails, index by flow:
http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-October/047608.html
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
