On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:36 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Edward, Cong,
>
> On Mon 18 May 2020 at 18:37, Edward Cree <ec...@solarflare.com> wrote:
> > On 15/05/2020 12:40, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> >> In order to
> >> significantly improve filter dump rate this patch sets implement new
> >> mode of TC filter dump operation named "terse dump" mode. In this mode
> >> only parameters necessary to identify the filter (handle, action cookie,
> >> etc.) and data that can change during filter lifecycle (filter flags,
> >> action stats, etc.) are preserved in dump output while everything else
> >> is omitted.
> > I realise I'm a bit late, but isn't this the kind of policy that shouldn't
> > be hard-coded in the kernel? I.e. if next year it turns out that some
> > user needs one parameter that's been omitted here, but not the whole dump,
> > are they going to want to add another mode to the uapi?
> > Should this not instead have been done as a set of flags to specify which
> > pieces of information the caller wanted in the dump, rather than a mode
> > flag selecting a pre-defined set?
> >
> > -ed
>
> I've been thinking some more about this. While the idea of making
> fine-grained dump where user controls exact contents field-by-field is
> unfeasible due to performance considerations, we can try to come up with
> something more coarse-grained but not fully hardcoded (like current terse
> dump implementation). Something like having a set of flags that allows
> to skip output of groups of attributes.
>
> For example, CLS_SKIP_KEY flag would skip the whole expensive classifier
> key dump without having to go through all 200 lines of conditionals in
> fl_dump_key() while ACT_SKIP_OPTIONS would skip outputting TCA_OPTIONS
> compound attribute (and expensive call to tc_action_ops->dump()). This
> approach would also leave the door open for further more fine-grained
> flags, if the need arises. For example, new flags
> CLS_SKIP_KEY_{L2,L3,L4} can be introduced to more precisely control
> which parts of cls key should be skipped.
>
> The main drawback of such approach is that it is impossible to come up
> with universal set of flags that would be applicable for all
> classifiers. Key (in some form) is applicable to most classifiers, but
> it still doesn't make sense for matchall or bpf. Some classifiers have
> 'flags', some don't. Hardware-offloaded classifiers have in_hw_count.
> Considering this, initial set of flags will be somewhat flower-centric.
>
> What do you think?
This looks like a reverse filtering to me, so essentially the same.
Please give me some time to think about this, it is definitely not
easy.
The only thing I worry is that once you add terse dump, we cannot
simply remove it any more. (Otherwise I wouldn't even want to push
you on this.)
Thanks.
