On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:34 PM Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > + > > > +static void > > > +add_to_ha_ref_chassis_info(struct ha_ref_chassis_info *ref_ch_info, > > > + const struct sbrec_chassis *chassis) > > > +{ > > > + for (size_t j = 0; j < ref_ch_info->n_ref_chassis; j++) { > > > + if (ref_ch_info->ref_chassis[j] == chassis) { > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + ref_ch_info->ref_chassis = xrealloc(ref_ch_info->ref_chassis, > > > + sizeof > *ref_ch_info->ref_chassis * > > > + > (++ref_ch_info->n_ref_chassis)); > > > > This may be inefficient, considering the amount of ref chassises to be > > added for each HA group. It is better to xrealloc for original_size * > > 2 every time and expand only when more space is needed. > > > > > + ref_ch_info->ref_chassis[ref_ch_info->n_ref_chassis - 1] = > > > + CONST_CAST(struct sbrec_chassis *, chassis); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void > > > +update_sb_ha_group_ref_chassis(struct shash *ha_ref_chassis_map) > > > +{ > > > + struct shash_node *node, *next; > > > + SHASH_FOR_EACH_SAFE (node, next, ha_ref_chassis_map) { > > > + struct ha_ref_chassis_info *ha_ref_info = node->data; > > > + > sbrec_ha_chassis_group_set_ref_chassis(ha_ref_info->ha_chassis_group, > > > + > ha_ref_info->ref_chassis, > > > + > ha_ref_info->n_ref_chassis); > > > + free(ha_ref_info->ref_chassis); > > > + free(ha_ref_info); > > > + shash_delete(ha_ref_chassis_map, node); > > > + } > > > +} > > > + > > > +/* This function returns logical router datapath (with a distributed > > > + * gateway port) to which 'od' is connected to - either directly > > > + * or indirectly (via transit logical switches). > > > + * Returns NULL if no logical router with gw port found. > > > + */ > > > +static struct ovn_datapath * > > > +get_router_dp_with_gw_port(struct hmap *ports, > > > + struct ovn_datapath *od, > > > + struct ovn_datapath *peer_od) > > > +{ > > > + if (!od) { > > > + return NULL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (od->nbs) { > > > + /* It's a logical switch datapath. */ > > > + if (peer_od) { > > > + /* If peer datapath is not logical router, then > > > + * something is wrong. */ > > > + ovs_assert(peer_od->nbr); > > > + } > > > + > > > + for (size_t i = 0; i < od->n_router_ports; i++) { > > > + if (!od->router_ports[i]->peer) { > > > + /* If there is no peer port connecting to the > > > + * router datapath, ignore it. */ > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > + > > > + struct ovn_datapath *router_dp = > od->router_ports[i]->peer->od; > > > + if (router_dp->l3dgw_port && router_dp->l3dgw_port->nbrp) > { > > > + /* Router datapath has a distributed gateway router > port. */ > > > + return router_dp; > > > > I think we can't return when just one router_dp is found. There can be > > more than one connected router that has gateway router ports. So the > > return value of this function should be a set. > > > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* The logical switch datapath is not connected to any > > > + * logical router with a distributed gateway port. Check if it > > > + * is indirectly connected to a logical router with a gw > port. */ > > > + for (size_t i = 0; i < od->n_router_ports; i++) { > > > + if (!od->router_ports[i]->peer) { > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > + > > > + struct ovn_datapath *router_dp = > > > + od->router_ports[i]->peer->od; > > > + > > > + /* If we don't check this, we will be in an infinite > loop. */ > > > + if (router_dp != peer_od) { > > > > peer_od should also be a set, it should skip checking any datapath > > that has already been checked. Consider the case LR1 is connected with > > LS1, LS2 and LS3. > > > > > + router_dp = get_router_dp_with_gw_port(ports, > router_dp, > > > + od); > > > + if (router_dp) { > > > + /* Found a logical router with gw port indirectly > connected > > > + * to 'od'. */ > > > + return router_dp; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + } > > > + } else if (od->nbr) { > > > + /* It's a logical router datapath. */ > > > + if (peer_od) { > > > + /* If peer datapath is not logical switch, then > > > + * something is wrong. */ > > > + ovs_assert(peer_od->nbs); > > > > A router port can be peered with another router port directly, so this > > assert is not true. > > > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* Check if this logical router datapath is indirectly > connected > > > + * to another logical router via a transit logical > switch(es). */ > > > + for (size_t i = 0; i < od->nbr->n_ports; i++) { > > > + struct ovn_port *router_port = > > > + ovn_port_find(ports, od->nbr->ports[i]->name); > > > + > > > + if (!router_port || !router_port->peer) { > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > + /* If we don't check this, we will be in an infinite > loop. */ > > > + if (router_port->peer->od != peer_od) { > > > + struct ovn_datapath *router_dp; > > > + /* router_port->peer->od points a logical switch > datapath. */ > > > + router_dp = get_router_dp_with_gw_port(ports, > > > + > router_port->peer->od, > > > + od); > > > + if (router_dp) { > > > + /* Found a logical router with gw port indirectly > connected > > > + * to 'od'. */ > > > + return router_dp; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + return NULL; > > > +} > > > > In general, it may refer to the flood-fill approach implemented in > > ovn-controller for populating local datapaths in binding.c, which is > > similar to the purpose here. However, we should consider an > > optimization here since the flood-fill cost would apply for every > > port-binding. It can be optimized with a cache, which maps between > > each datapath and its related router_dps with gw ports, to avoid > > repeated traversing. (In ovn-controller it can be optimized, too, but > > the gain is not as big as here since only local port-bindings are > > checked in ovn-controller.) > > >
Thanks for the comments Han. I will work on them. I haven't thought of an optimization yet. I will try to explore based on your suggestions. At the same time, I personally think the code shouldn't get complicated because of the optimization. (I feel the present code in ovn-controller [1] is a bit complicated - [1] - https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/ovn/controller/bfd.c#L98 ) I think it is uncommon to have indirect logical router connections which eventually connect to a router with a gateway router port. May be I am wrong. Do you think it's common to have such setups ? I forgot to mention, this implementation is for finding out the > required BFD sessions, however, it can be reused for a more generic > purpose - to figure out whether a tunnel is needed between each pair > of chassises. There happens to be a related discussion ongoing here: > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2019-March/048281.html > > I have seen thread. I will try to make it generic. If not I think we can revisit the code later and make it generic and more optimized. As a first step I think it should be reasonable to aim to have the solution for the HA_Chassis_Group's ref_chassis calculation. Does this sound good ? Thanks Numan Thanks, > Han > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
