On 6/7/21 7:33 AM, Han Zhou wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 6:56 AM Dumitru Ceara <dce...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/28/21 9:23 PM, Han Zhou wrote: >>> The series fixes incremental processing for missing dependency handling > for >>> multicast group and logical port binding changes when computing logical > flows. >>> It also removes the workaround in northd that was required due to the > missing >>> dependency handling. In addition, the fix also allows us to monitor all > DPGs as >>> an optimization, so it is also included in the series. >>> >> >> Hi Han, >> >> Thanks for working on fixing this! I wonder however if there will be >> any performance impact due to the added resource references? I didn't >> do any scale testing, did you have a chance to? >> > Hi Dumitru, >
Hi Han, > Thanks for the review. There is no performance impact noticed because the > port-binding reference is already tracked in the existing implementation > for lports used at outport/inport and is_chassis_resident. This fix mainly > changes the way how it is tracked (by name instead of DP keys). I admit > that there are some extra references added compared with existing > implementation: > 1. References for the lports that are not found > 2. For lports that are used other than for > inport/outport/is_chassis_resident I'm not sure there is any other lport reference except the three above. > 3. For MC groups (found or not found) > > 1) is the very few cases that do not matter for performance but matter for > correctness. 2) seems also rare, if exists at all. 3) shouldn't impact > performance either because the number of MC groups should be much smaller > than that of lports. > So I think the performance impact is negligible and if there is any cost it > is necessary for the correctness. I ran a test with 1k lswitches, 10k > lports and an ACL using half of the ports in a logical group (and address > set) and triggers full recompute - there is no performance difference > noticed. > Great, thanks for the confirmation. >> As an alternative, maybe longer term though, would it make sense to use >> explicit references instead in the Southbound schema? That would >> simplify the ovn-controller code and would rely on the IDL to propagate >> the change tracking to the flows that refer to multicast groups/port >> bindings/port groups. > > I wonder if this is possible because the end user specifies the "match" > directly in an ACL, which can use port names. We will have to change the > ACL syntax to support it. An alternative would be to perform some basic ACL match parsing in northd, parsing tokens like inport/outport/is_chassis_resident/$<address_set>/@<port_group>. > On the other hand, if we can generate lflows using references to SB > port-bindings or MC groups, we would be able to put the DP key in the lflow > directly, without the need for ovn-controller to parse the lport/mc-group > at all, so there is no reference needed, right? Exactly, that was what I was thinking too. I wonder how we'd maintain backwards compatibility though. Would we need a logical_flow_v2 table in the Southbound? > > Thanks, > Han > Thanks, Dumitru _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev