On 2020-08-17 3:47 p.m., Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote:
[..]
There is no ambiguity of intent in the fw case, there is only one field.
In the case of having multiple fields it is ambigious if you
unconditionally look.
Example: policy says to match skb mark of 5 and hash of 3.
If packet arrives with skb->mark is 5 and skb->hash is 3
very clearly matched the intent of the policy.
If packet arrives withj skb->mark 7 and hash 3 it clearly
did not match the intent. etc.
This example clearly shows no ambiguous, right? ;)
Ambigious only from the perspective of relational AND vs OR
(your original pseudo code had it in OR relation).
But if filters were put in a global hashtable, the above would be
much harder to implement.
Ok, yes. My assumption has been you will have some global shared
structure where all filters will be installed on.
Sure, if not hashtable, we could simply put them in a list:
list_for_each_filter {
if (filter_parameter_has_hash) {
match skb->hash with cls->param_hash
}
if (filter_parameter_has_mark) {
match skb->mark with cls->param_mark
}
}
Yes, that would work - but iteration is linear.
I think i may have misunderstood all along what you were saying
which is:
a) add the rules so they are each _independent with different
priorities_ in a chain.
Yes, because this gives users freedom to pick a different prio
from its value (hash or mark).
ok.
b) when i do lookup for packet arrival, i will only see a filter
that matches "match mark 5 and hash 3" (meaning there is no
ambiguity on intent). If packet data doesnt match policy then
i will iterate to another filter on the chain list with lower
priority.
Right. Multiple values mean AND, not OR, so if you specify
mark 5 and hash 3, it will match skb->mark==5 && skb->hash==3.
If not matched, it will continue the iteration until the end.
That would remove the ambiguity (assuming iteration with "continue"
to create the AND effect).
Am i correct in my understanding?
If i am - then we still have a problem with lookup scale in presence
of a large number of filters since essentially this approach
is linear lookup (similar problem iptables has). I am afraid
a hash table or something with similar principle goals is needed.
Yeah, this is why I asked you whether we have to put them in a
hashtable in previous emails, as hashtable organizes them with
a key, it is hard to combine multiple fields in one key and allow
to extend easily in the future. But other people smarter than me
may have better ideas here.
To achieve reasonable performance (with many filters) I dont think
there is escape from having something that is centralized
(per priority) - sort of what fw, u32 or flower do. A hash table is
the most common approach; i was hoping that IDR maybe useful since the
skb->hash maps nicely to "32 bit key" but Vlad was saying at the
tc workshop that he was seeing bottlenecks with IDR.
I will test a few hash algorithms (including common one like jenkins)
for this use case.
Problem right now is we have that rcu-inspired upper bucket limit
(which exists) in fw as well: If i have 1M entries which can only be
spread to 256 buckets perfectly then i have ~4K entries per bucket
which are a linked list. So we are still not doing so well. Do you have
time to make that better for fw (since you are an rcu maestro).
cheers,
jamal
