On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:51:38PM +0000, Chandran, Sugesh wrote: > > From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:07 PM > > To: Chandran, Sugesh <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; Gray, Mark D <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Zoltán Balogh > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tunneling: Avoid recirculation on datapath by > > computing the recirculate actions at translate time. > > > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:41:54PM +0000, Sugesh Chandran wrote: > > > Openvswitch datapath recirculates packets for tunneling, i.e. > > > the incoming packets are encapsulated at first pass. Further actions > > > are applied on encapsulated packets on the second pass after > > > recirculating. > > > The proposed patch compute and append the post tunnel actions at the > > > time of translation itself instead of recirculating at datapath. These > > > actions are solely depends on tunnel attributes so there is no need of > > datapath recirculation. > > > By avoiding the recirculation at datapath, the patch offers upto 30% > > > performance improvement for VxLAN tunneling in our testing. > > > The action execution logic is using the new CLONE action to define the > > > packet cloning when the actions are combined. The lenght in the CLONE > > > action specifies the size of nested action set. > > > > > > Also fixing the test suites failures that are introduced by CLONE > > > action in tunneling except the ovn test case 2299. > > > > I guess by this you mean that this test still consistently fails? > > 2301: ovn -- 1 LR with distributed router gateway port FAILED > > (ovn.at:6658) > > > > What's the plan for that, presumably we can't apply a patch that causes test > > failures? > [Sugesh] : The test case is failing due to the missing datapath rule. > With our limited knowledge on the OVN and OVS UT setup, Here are our findings, > The tunnel(in the test case its geneve) create two rules in the datapath for > packet forwarding. > The proposed patch is combining them into single rule to avoid the > recirculation and speed up the packet processing. > The failing test case is trying to send packets directly to the outer bridge > to match on nonexistent second rule. > Should we comment out this output validation in the test case? > Please let me know your inputs on this? Also looking for help from OVN > experts who can suggest a fix for the same?
If I understand correctly, the now-failing check in the test case is checking for an implementation detail that has changed. If that's true, then I think it would be reasonable to remove that check. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
