[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BY2PR0301MB0727FA3B33977F2E64975F839C7F0@BY2PR0301MB0727.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:00:23 +0000
From: Manoil Claudiu <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <moorray3@...pl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] gianfar: remove faulty filer optimizer
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jakub Kicinski [mailto:moorray3@...pl]
>Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:12 PM
>To: David S. Miller; Manoil Claudiu-B08782
>Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Jakub Kicinski
>Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gianfar: remove faulty filer optimizer
>
>From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
>
>Current filer rule optimization is broken in several ways:
> (1) It destroys rule ordering.
> (2) It performs reads/writes beyond end of allocated tables.
> (3) It breaks badly for rules with more than 2 specifiers
> (e.g. matching ip, port, tos).
> (4) We observed that the masking rules it generates do not
> play well with clustering on P2020. Only first rule
> of the cluster would ever fire. Given that optimizer
> relies heavily on masking this is very hard to fix.
>
>The fact that nobody noticed (1), (3) or (4) makes me think
>that this feature is not very widely used and we should just
>remove it.
I'm not familiar with this filer classification code and its
author is no longer active apparently. There is not much of a
choice here since this optimization feature is too complex and
poorly documented to be reviewed and validated in a reasonable
time span.
An example, a simple use case showing expected behavior vs.
actual behavior would help.
Thanks,
Claudiu
--
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