Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:43:15 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	simon.horman@...ronome.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, gerlitz.or@...il.com,
	andy@...yhouse.net, ast@...mgrid.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 00/12] Flow API

Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:28:38PM CET, tgraf@...g.ch wrote:
>On 01/23/15 at 12:39pm, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Maybe I did not express myself correctly. I do not care if this is
>> exposed by rtnl or a separate genetlink. The issue still stands. And the
>> issue is that the user have to use "the way A" to setup sw datapath and
>> "the way B" to setup hw datapath. The preferable would be to have
>> "the way X" which can be used to setup both sw and hw.
>> 
>> And I believe that could be achieved. Consider something like this:
>> 
>> - have cls_xflows tc classifier and act_xflows tc action as a wrapper
>>   (or api) for John's work. With possibility for multiple backends. The
>>   backend iface would looke very similar to what John has now.
>> - other tc clses and acts will implement xflows backend
>> - openvswitch datapath will implement xflows backend
>> - rocker switch will implement xflows backend
>> - other drivers will implement xflows backend
>> 
>> Now if user wants to manipulate with any flow setting, he can just use
>> cls_xflows and act_xflows to to that.
>> 
>> This is very rough, but I just wanted to draw the picture. This would
>> provide single entry to flow world manipulation in kernel, no matter if
>> sw or hw.
>
>If I understand this correctly then you propose to do the decision on
>whether to implement a flow in software or offload it to hardware in the
>xflows classifier and action. I had exactly the same architecture in mind
>initially when I first approached this and wanted to offload OVS
>datapath flows transparently to hardware.

Think about xflows as an iface to multiple backends, some sw and some hw.
User will be able to specify which backed he wants to use for particular
"commands".

So for example, ovs kernel datapath module will implement an xflows
backend and register it as "ovsdp". Rocker will implement another xflows
backend and register it as "rockerdp". Then, ovs userspace will use xflows
api to setup both backends independently, but using the same xflows api.

It is still up to userspace to decide what should be put where (what
backend to use).

>
>If you look at this from the existing tc world then that makes a lot
>of sense, in particular if you only support a single flat table with
>wildcard flows and no priorities.
>
>If you want to support priorities it already gets complicated. If flow
>A, B, C are offloaded to hardware and the user then inserts a new flow
>D with higher priority that can't be offloaded you need to figure out
>whether you have to remove any of A, B, C from the hardware tables again
>on the basis whether D overlaps with A, B, or C. If you have to remove
>any of them you then have to verify whether that removal needs to
>remove other already offloaded flows as well. It's certainly doable but
>already adds considerable complexity to the kernel.
>
>If you want to support multiple tables it gets even more complicated
>because a flow in table 2 which can be offloaded might depend on a
>flow in table 1 which can't be offloaded. You somehow need to track
>that dependency and ensure that table 1 sends that flow to the CPU so
>that the flow in table 2 sees it. The answer to this might be to maybe
>only support  offload to a single table but that decreases the value
>of the offload dramatically because the capabilities of each table are
>very different.
>
>If you bring the full programmability of OVS into the picture you might
>have a pipeline consisting of multiple tables like this:
>
> +-------+   +------+   +-----+   +-------+
> | Decap |-->| L2   |-->| L3  |-->| Encap |
> +-------+   +------+   +-----+   +-------+
>
>Each table contains flows and metadata registers plus header matches
>are used to talk among the tables. The pipeline builds a chain of
>actions which may be executed at any point in the pipeline or at the
>end. If you want to map such a software pipeline to a set of hardware
>tables you need to have full visbility into this table structure at
>the point where you make the offload decision. This means that all of
>this complexity would have to move into xflows.
>
>Another aspect is that you might want to split a flow X into a hardware
>and software part, e.g. consider the following flow:
>
>in_port=vxlan0,vni=10,ip_dst=10.1.1.1,actions=decap(),nfqueue(10),output(tap0)
>
>The hardware might be capable of matching on the VXLAN VNI, IP dst and
>it might also capable of deencap. It obviously doesn't know about
>netfilter queues. Ideally what you want is to split this into the
>following flows:
>
>Hardware table (offloaded):
>in_port=vxlan0,vni=10,ip_dst=10.1.1.1,actions=decap(),metadata=1
>
>Software table:
>metadata=1,actions=nfqueue(10),output(tap0)
>
>If the hardware capabilities are not exported to OVS then xflows would
>need to encode such logic and xflows would need to be made aware of the
>full software pipeline with all tables as you need to see all flows in
>order to decide what to offload where.
>
>I would love to see a tc interface to John's flow API and I see
>tremendous value but I don't think it's appropriate to offload OVS.
--
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