Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:06:34 +0000
From:	Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
CC:	<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] mpls: support for dead routes

On 29/10/15 18:46, roopa wrote:
> On 10/29/15, 9:53 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>> On 29/10/15 15:49, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>>
>>> Adds support for both RTNH_F_DEAD and RTNH_F_LINKDOWN flags.
>>> This resembles ipv4 fib code. I also picked fib_rebalance from
>>> ipv4. Enabled weights support for nexthop, just because the
>>> infrastructure is already there.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>> ---
>>> I want to get this in before net-next closes as promised.
>>> I have tested it for the dead/linkdown flags. The multipath selection
>>> and hash calculation in the face of dead routes needs some more
>>> work. I am short on cycles this week and thought of getting some
>>> early feedback. Hence sending this out as RFC. I will continue with some
>>> more testing.  Robert, I am using your hash algo but it needs some more
>>> work with dead routes. If you already have any thoughts on this, i will
>>> take them. thanks!.
>>
>> If you were to sort the array of nexthops (and by implication via addresses) by their non-deadness keeping a count of the alive nexthops, then there's no need to resort to an O(n) algorithm for selecting the nexthop, and no need to store per-nh flags.
>>
>> E.g. before eth0 link down:
>>
>> +----------------------+
>> | rt_nhn = 3           |
>> | rt_nhn_alive = 3     |
>> +----------------------+
>> | nh 0:                |
>> | dev = eth0, ...      |
>> +----------------------+
>> | nh 1:                |
>> | dev = eth1, ...      |
>> +----------------------+
>> | nh 2:                |
>> | dev = eth0, ...      |
>> +----------------------+
>> | vias ...             |
>> +----------------------+
>>
>> after eth0 link down:
>>
>> +----------------------+
>> | rt_nhn = 3           |
>> | rt_nhn_alive = 1     |
>> +----------------------+
>> | nh 0:                |
>> | dev = eth1, ...      |
>> +----------------------+
>> | nh 1:                |
>> | dev = eth0, ...      |
>> +----------------------+
>> | nh 2:                |
>> | dev = eth0, ...      |
>> +----------------------+
>> | vias ...             |
>> +----------------------+
>>
>> The mpls_select_multipath algorithm just then needs to be changed to use rt_nhn_alive instead of rt_nhn and will work otherwise as-is.
>>
>> On link down you'll need to alloc a new route for RCU-safety, but you can presumably just do a kmemdup to reduce the amount of code you have to write and sort the nexthops in the copy. Link up will be similar.
> You mean sort the nexthops on every link and carrier event ?. I don't see a need for it.
>>
>> Then on the mpls_dump_route, if the index of the nexthop is >= rt_nhn_alive then the path is link-down. If the nh_dev is NULL then generate RTNH_F_DEAD|RTNH_F_LINKDOWN for the flags, otherwise just RTNH_F_LINKDOWN.
> I was not thinking of making nh_dev NULL on RTNH_F_DEAD. And i would prefer to store the RTNH flags instead of deriving them on every dump.
>>
>> This would use less memory and be faster for forwarding.
> Thanks for your inputs Robert. I am not see a huge advantage in sorting the nexthops on link events.
> And i will be only saving an 'int' in a nexthop.

It avoids the extra 12 bytes per nexthop and it means that you don't 
need to walk through every nexthop in the worst case to select a path 
during forwarding.

Thanks,
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists