Ethan,
I have not worked on this since, so this is the current version.
Jarno
On Apr 8, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Should I review this version of the patch? Or do you have a non-RFC
> version ready?
>
> Ethan
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme
> wrote:
>
Should I review this version of the patch? Or do you have a non-RFC
version ready?
Ethan
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Intended to send this as an RFC,
>
> Jarno
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
>> This should optimize port masks for megafl
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Jarno doesn't have that data at the moment, so here's a summary which
> you can put in the commit message if you'd like.
>
> To test this we took real customer ACL tables, and systematically sent
> every port from 1 to 65k through th
Jarno doesn't have that data at the moment, so here's a summary which
you can put in the commit message if you'd like.
To test this we took real customer ACL tables, and systematically sent
every port from 1 to 65k through them to see how many megaflows are
generated. If you do nothing, you end u
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 06:49:55PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> Yep this is the same thing. I've successfully shown that this
> algorithm is the best for our use case and was intending to implement
> it myself. However, for many rather complicated reasons it became
> important to have a prototyp
Yep this is the same thing. I've successfully shown that this
algorithm is the best for our use case and was intending to implement
it myself. However, for many rather complicated reasons it became
important to have a prototype implementation quickly, so Jarno
graciously offered to pound out the
Is this the same as what you've been working on, Ethan? If not, is it
complementary, or...?
On Mar 10, 2014 6:39 PM, "Jarno Rajahalme" wrote:
> Intended to send this as an RFC,
>
> Jarno
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Jarno Rajahalme
> wrote:
>
> > This should optimize port masks for megaflo
Intended to send this as an RFC,
Jarno
On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> This should optimize port masks for megaflows for typical port usage
> in matches. Each subtable has it's own trie if the subtable matches
> any of the ports bits. This trie is consulted only after
This should optimize port masks for megaflows for typical port usage
in matches. Each subtable has it's own trie if the subtable matches
any of the ports bits. This trie is consulted only after failing
lookup to determine the number of bits that needs to be unwildcarded
to guarantee that any pack
