On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:10 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon 18 May 2020 at 21:46, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 11:44 PM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun 17 May 2020 at 22:13, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:40 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Output rate of current upstream kernel TC filter dump implementation if
> >> >> relatively low (~100k rules/sec depending on configuration). This
> >> >> constraint impacts performance of software switch implementation that
> >> >> rely on TC for their datapath implementation and periodically call TC
> >> >> filter dump to update rules stats. Moreover, TC filter dump output a lot
> >> >> of static data that don't change during the filter lifecycle (filter
> >> >> key, specific action details, etc.) which constitutes significant
> >> >> portion of payload on resulting netlink packets and increases amount of
> >> >> syscalls necessary to dump all filters on particular Qdisc. In order to
> >> >> significantly improve filter dump rate this patch sets implement new
> >> >> mode of TC filter dump operation named "terse dump" mode. In this mode
> >> >> only parameters necessary to identify the filter (handle, action cookie,
> >> >> etc.) and data that can change during filter lifecycle (filter flags,
> >> >> action stats, etc.) are preserved in dump output while everything else
> >> >> is omitted.
> >> >>
> >> >> Userspace API is implemented using new TCA_DUMP_FLAGS tlv with only
> >> >> available flag value TCA_DUMP_FLAGS_TERSE. Internally, new API requires
> >> >> individual classifier support (new tcf_proto_ops->terse_dump()
> >> >> callback). Support for action terse dump is implemented in act API and
> >> >> don't require changing individual action implementations.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for being late.
> >> >
> >> > Why terse dump needs a new ops if it only dumps a subset of the
> >> > regular dump? That is, why not just pass a boolean flag to regular
> >> > ->dump() implementation?
> >> >
> >> > I guess that might break user-space ABI? At least some netlink
> >> > attributes are not always dumped anyway, so it does not look like
> >> > a problem?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >>
> >> Hi Cong,
> >>
> >> I considered adding a flag to ->dump() callback but decided against it
> >> for following reasons:
> >>
> >> - It complicates fl_dump() code by adding additional conditionals. Not a
> >> big problem but it seemed better for me to have a standalone callback
> >> because with combined implementation it is even hard to deduce what
> >> does terse dump actually output.
> >
> > This is not a problem, at least you can add a big if in fl_dump(),
> > something like:
> >
> > if (terse) {
> > // do terse dump
> > return 0;
> > }
> > // normal dump
>
> That is what I was trying to prevent with my implementation: having big
> "superfunctions" that implement multiple things with branching. Why not
> just have dedicated callbacks that do exactly one thing?
1. Saving one unnecessary ops.
2. Easier to trace the code: all dumpings are in one implementation.
>
> >
> >>
> >> - My initial implementation just called regular dump for classifiers
> >> that don't support terse dump, but in internal review Jiri insisted
> >> that cls API should fail if it can't satisfy user's request and having
> >> dedicated callback allows implementation to return an error if
> >> classifier doesn't define ->terse_dump(). With flag approach it would
> >> be not trivial to determine if implementation actually uses the flag.
> >
> > Hmm? For those not support terse dump, we can just do:
> >
> > if (terse)
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > // normal dump goes here
> >
> > You just have to pass 'terse' flag to all implementations and let them
> > to decide whether to support it or not.
>
> But why duplicate the same code to all existing cls dump implementations
> instead of having such check nicely implemented in cls API (via callback
> existence or a flag)?
I am confused, your fl_terse_dump() also has duplication with fl_dump()...
Thanks.
