> > Disabling the EMC on master I have measured a baseline performance
> > (in+out) of ~1.32 Mpps (64 bytes, 1000 L4 flows). The average number
> > of subtable lookups per megaflow match is 2.5.
>
> Just running parallel ping between the tunnel end-point IPs on the two
> servers increases the numb
> Disabling the EMC on master I have measured a baseline performance
> (in+out) of ~1.32 Mpps (64 bytes, 1000 L4 flows). The average number of
> subtable lookups per megaflow match is 2.5.
Just running parallel ping between the tunnel end-point IPs on the two
servers increases the number of subt
> The true value of sorting subtables will only materialize when having
> one sorted list per ingress port. Due to RSS and vhost-user
> multi-queue I am afraid that, when performance really matters, each
> port will be split over more than one PMD and every PMD will serve
> many ports. There is no
From: Jarno Rajahalme [mailto:ja...@ovn.org]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 8:59 PM
To: Fischetti, Antonio
Cc: Jan Scheurich ; Ben Pfaff ;
dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for Wildcard matching.
On May 20, 2016, at 4:07 AM, Fischetti, Antonio
19, 2016 7:51 PM
>> To: Fischetti, Antonio > <mailto:antonio.fische...@intel.com>>
>> Cc: Jan Scheurich > <mailto:jan.scheur...@ericsson.com>>; Ben Pfaff
>> mailto:b...@ovn.org>>; dev@openvswitch.org
>> <mailto:dev@openvswitch.org>
>&g
---Original Message-
> >> From: Jan Scheurich [mailto:jan.scheur...@ericsson.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:55 PM
> >> To: Fischetti, Antonio ; Ben Pfaff
> >>
> >> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> >> Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC]
> >> What we do see, however is that there is often a strong correlation
> >> between the ingress port and the subset of masks/subtables that have
> >> hits. The entire megaflow cache typically decomposes nicely into
> >> partitions that are hit only by packets entering from equivalent
> >> ports (
day, May 19, 2016 3:55 PM
>> To: Fischetti, Antonio ; Ben Pfaff
>>
>> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
>> Subject: RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for
>> Wildcard matching.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> The current ACL implementation is using rules a
RE: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for
> Wildcard matching.
>
> Hi,
>
> > The current ACL implementation is using rules as {ProtocolType,
> IPsrc, IPdest,
> > PortSrc, PortDest}, so I'm limited to play just with these 5
> fields.
> >
>
Hi,
> The current ACL implementation is using rules as {ProtocolType, IPsrc, IPdest,
> PortSrc, PortDest}, so I'm limited to play just with these 5 fields.
>
From experience with real-world OVS deployments using bonded interfaces and
overlay tunnels (e.g. VXLAN) I would say that the vast majori
c=5.5.5.$i,action=output:2
done
Thanks,
Antonio
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@ovn.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 10:16 PM
> To: Fischetti, Antonio
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for
> Wi
From: Jarno Rajahalme [mailto:ja...@ovn.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:45 PM
To: Fischetti, Antonio
Cc: Ben Pfaff ; dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for Wildcard matching.
On May 5, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Fischetti, Antonio
mailto:antonio.fische
tonio <mailto:antonio.fische...@intel.com>>
> Cc: Ben Pfaff mailto:b...@ovn.org>>; dev@openvswitch.org
> <mailto:dev@openvswitch.org>
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for Wildcard
> matching.
>
>
> On May 4, 2016, at 3:56 AM,
Thanks for your feedback, Jarno. Replies inline.
From: Jarno Rajahalme [mailto:ja...@ovn.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 7:23 PM
To: Fischetti, Antonio
Cc: Ben Pfaff ; dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for Wildcard matching.
On May 4, 2016, at 3:56
> On May 4, 2016, at 3:56 AM, Fischetti, Antonio
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jarno, my reply inline.
>
> Thanks,
> Antonio
>
>>> For more details, please let me know.
>>>
>>
>> The flows above are at the OpenFlow level. I guess your test traffic
>> exercises (just) the corresponding datapath flows?
>>
to tables, EMC lookups and so on,
of course the performance gain will have less impact on the overall
system.
The performance figures are just for the IPv4 5-tuple, but I needed
to share the idea and have some feedback from the Community
before moving forward.
>
> Jarno
>
> &g
utput:2
> > add-flow br0
> dl_type=0x0800,nw_proto=17,nw_src=17.18.19.6,action=output:2
> > add-flow br0
> dl_type=0x0800,nw_proto=17,nw_dst=34.35.36.37,action=output:2
> > add-flow br0 dl_type=0x0800,nw_dst=34.35.36.38,action=output:2
> >
> > For more details,
tuple, but all the different fields supported by struct
flow (metadata, L2, IPv6, ARP, IGMP, etc)?
Jarno
> Thanks,
> Antonio
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@ovn.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 7:41 PM
>> To: Fis
6,action=output:2
> add-flow br0 dl_type=0x0800,nw_proto=17,nw_dst=34.35.36.37,action=output:2
> add-flow br0 dl_type=0x0800,nw_dst=34.35.36.38,action=output:2
>
> For more details, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Antonio
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message---
hanks,
Antonio
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:b...@ovn.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 7:41 PM
> To: Fischetti, Antonio
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH RFC] dpif-netdev: ACL+dpcls for Wildcard
> matching.
>
> On
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:45:09AM +0100, antonio.fische...@intel.com wrote:
> The purpose of this implementation is to improve the performance
> of wildcard matching in user-space.
> This RFC patch shows the basic functionality, some aspects were not
> covered yet.
>
> I would like to get some fe
The purpose of this implementation is to improve the performance
of wildcard matching in user-space.
This RFC patch shows the basic functionality, some aspects were not
covered yet.
I would like to get some feedback on whether people think integrating
the DPDK ACL table in this manner is potential
22 matches
Mail list logo
