Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:15:24 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>, jpettit@...ira.com,
	Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	John Linville <linville@...driver.com>, shrijeet@...il.com,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>, bcrl@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Flows! Offload them.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:04:31PM CET, therbert@...gle.com wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>> Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:38:01AM CET, simon.horman@...ronome.com wrote:
>>>>Hi Jiri,
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:42:14AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> Hello everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to discuss big next step for switch offloading. Probably
>>>>> the most complicated one we have so far. That is to be able to offload flows.
>>>>> Leaving nftables aside for a moment, I see 2 big usecases:
>>>>> - TC filters and actions offload.
>>>>> - OVS key match and actions offload.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it might sense to ignore OVS for now. The reason is ongoing efford
>>>>> to replace OVS kernel datapath with TC subsystem. After that, OVS offload
>>>>> will not longer be needed and we'll get it for free with TC offload
>>>>> implementation. So we can focus on TC now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my list of actions to achieve some results in near future:
>>>>> 1) finish cls_openflow classifier and iproute part of it
>>>>> 2) extend switchdev API for TC cls and acts offloading (using John's flow api?)
>>>>> 3) use rocker to provide offload for cls_openflow and couple of selected actions
>>>>> 4) improve cls_openflow performance (hashtables etc)
>>>>> 5) improve TC subsystem performance in both slow and fast path
>>>>>     -RTNL mutex and qdisc lock removal/reduction, lockless stats update.
>>>>> 6) implement "named sockets" (working name) and implement TC support for that
>>>>>     -ingress qdisc attach, act_mirred target
>>>>> 7) allow tunnels (VXLAN, Geneve, GRE) to be created as named sockets
>>>>> 8) implement TC act_mpls
>>>>> 9) suggest to switch OVS userspace from OVS genl to TC API
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my personal action list, but you are *very welcome* to step in to help.
>>>>> Point 2) haunts me at night....
>>>>> I believe that John is already working on 2) and part of 3).
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>> >From my point of view the question of replacing the kernel datapath with TC
>>>>is orthogonal to the question of flow offloads. This is because I believe
>>>>there is some consensus around the idea that, at least in the case of Open
>>>>vSwitch, the decision to offload flows should made in user-space where
>>>>flows are already managed. And in that case datapath will not be
>>>>transparently offloading of flows.  And thus flow offload may be performed
>>>>independently of the kernel datapath, weather that be via flow manipulation
>>>>portions of John's Flow API, TC, or some other means.
>>>
>>> Well, on netdev01, I believe that a consensus was reached that for every
>>> switch offloaded functionality there has to be an implementation in
>>> kernel. What John's Flow API originally did was to provide a way to
>>> configure hardware independently of kernel. So the right way is to
>>> configure kernel and, if hw allows it, to offload the configuration to hw.
>>>
>>> In this case, seems to me logical to offload from one place, that being
>>> TC. The reason is, as I stated above, the possible conversion from OVS
>>> datapath to TC.
>>>
>>Sorry if I'm asking dumb questions, but this is about where I usually
>>start to get lost in these discussions ;-). Is the aim of switch
>>offload to offload OVS or kernel functions of routing, iptables, tc,
>>etc.? These are very different I believe. As far as I can tell OVS
>>model of "flows" (like Openflow) is currently incompatible with the
>>rest of the kernel. So if the plan is convert OVS datapath to TC does
>>that mean introducing that model into core kernel?
>
> The thing is that you can achieve very similar model as OVS with TC.
> OVS uses rx_handler.
> TC uses handle_ing hook.
> Those are in the same place in the receive path.
> After that, ovs processes skb through key matches, and does some actions.
> The same is done in TC cls_* and act_*.
> Finally skb is forwarded to some netdev by dev_queue_xmit (in both OVS
> and TC).
>
> I certainly simplified things. But I do not see the different model you
> are talking about.
>
But, routing (aka switching) in the stack is not configured through
TC. We have a whole forwarding and routing infrastructure (eg.
iproute) with optimizations that  allow routes to be cached in
sockets, etc. To me, it seems like offloading that basic functionality
is a prerequisite before attempting to offload more advanced policy
mechanisms of TC, netfilter, etc.

Tom

> Jiri
--
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