Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 02/25/2016 03:49:37 PM: > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > Date: 02/25/2016 03:49 PM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v7,3/6,ovn-controller] Make flow table persistent > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:38:10PM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 02/25/2016 03:19:32 PM: > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > Cc: dev@openvswitch.org > > > Date: 02/25/2016 03:20 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev,v7,3/6,ovn-controller] Make flow table persistent > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:25:09AM -0600, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > > From: RYAN D. MOATS <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > This is a prerequisite for incremental processing. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: RYAN D. MOATS <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > > > > > > This appears to make ofctrl_add_flow() into an O(n) operation in the > > > number of flows already in the flow table. That shouldn't be necessary? > > > > > > > Han and I had this discussion on v6 of the patch set in the thread starting > > at http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-February/thread.html#66312 > > > > My ending conclusion still applies - I don't like it, but I've not come > > up with a better solution - if somebody can think of a better way to do > > this, I'm all ears... > > Clearly we need to delete and replace an old flow, the question is why > that's being done by iterating over all the flows in O(n) instead of > hashing to find it in O(1). >
Doh! /me headdesks with the comment "why didn't I think of that..." Would a hash that covers table/priority be enough or would it be better to have two hashes - one that covers table/priority/match set and the other that covers table/priority/ofpacts set. Ryan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
