On 10 November 2014 09:25, 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.
>> > ---
>>
>>
> By the way, this:
>
>
>> Patch looks good. I have few comments:
>> - Can you make union of unmasked_key and (fid, ufid_hash), since they
>> are mutually exclusive.
>>
>
> And this:
>
>
>> - ovs_flow_tbl_destroy() can iterate flow table and delete both hash
>> entries. that way there is no need to iterate both tables.
>
>
> Seem to conflict. If we're not keeping the flow in both tables, then we'll
> need to iterate both.
>
My misunderstanding - the flow will always be kept in the standard flow
table for access by the packet processing side, but only stored in the UFID
table if userspace provides a UFID.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
