Re: [RFC net-next 1/6] openvswitch: exclude kernel flow key from upcalls

[Aaron Conole]

Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On 11/22/22 15:03, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> When processing upcall commands, two groups of data are available to
>> userspace for processing: the actual packet data and the kernel
>> sw flow key data.  The inclusion of the flow key allows the userspace
>> avoid running through the dissection again.
>> 
>> However, the userspace can choose to ignore the flow key data, as is
>> the case in some ovs-vswitchd upcall processing.  For these messages,
>> having the flow key data merely adds additional data to the upcall
>> pipeline without any actual gain.  Userspace simply throws the data
>> away anyway.
>
> Hi, Aaron.  While it's true that OVS in userpsace is re-parsing the
> packet from scratch and using the newly parsed key for the OpenFlow
> translation, the kernel-porvided key is still used in a few important
> places.  Mainly for the compatibility checking.  The use is described
> here in more details:
>   https://docs.kernel.org/networking/openvswitch.html#flow-key-compatibility
>
> We need to compare the key generated in userspace with the key
> generated by the kernel to know if it's safe to install the new flow
> to the kernel, i.e. if the kernel and OVS userpsace are parsing the
> packet in the same way.
>
> On the other hand, OVS today doesn't check the data, it only checks
> which fields are present.  So, if we can generate and pass the bitmap
> of fields present in the key or something similar without sending the
> full key, that might still save some CPU cycles and memory in the
> socket buffer while preserving the ability to check for forward and
> backward compatibility.  What do you think?

Maybe that can work.  I will try testing.  If so, then I would change
this semantic to send just the bitmap rather than omitting everything.

> The rest of the patch set seems useful even without patch #1 though.

I agree - but I didn't know if it made sense to submit the series
without adding something impactful (like a test).  I will work a bit
more on the flow area - maybe I can add enough actions and matches to
implement basic flow tests to submit while we think more about the feature.

> Nit: This patch #1 should probably be merged with the patch #6 and be
> at the end of a patch set, so the selftest and the main code are updated
> at the same time.

Okay - I can restructure them this way.

> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.